Since President Donald Trump returned to the White House and pushed for expanded immigration enforcement, tens of thousands of detainees have filed habeas petitions asking federal judges to rule whether their detention is lawful. A ProPublica analysis of more than 70,000 cases filed since January 2025 found dramatic variation in how quickly judges resolve these requests, with resolution times ranging from days to months across different districts.

The delays have been particularly pronounced in parts of Mississippi and Louisiana, where federal judges have typically taken three months or more to decide whether detainees should be released. Among resolved cases in Mississippi, half took 92 days or longer — the longest of any state. Some immigrants were deported before a judge could rule on their petitions.

Federal courts elsewhere have processed cases faster. In Texas, California and Florida, where courts have handled thousands of habeas petitions, decisions typically came within about six weeks. Minnesota courts reached decisions even more quickly, with a median of roughly 12 days for resolved cases.

The massive influx has strained already overburdened federal courts and judges who suddenly have had hundreds more cases on crowded dockets. District courts with staffing shortages have struggled to keep habeas cases moving at a consistent pace.

What the Right Is Saying

Supporters of the administration's immigration enforcement approach argue that courts are struggling to manage an unprecedented surge in filings that followed policy changes. They note that federal judges, not executive branch agencies, control case processing timelines and that some judicial districts face greater backlogs than others due to existing caseloads and staffing constraints.

A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson disputed claims about substandard conditions at detention facilities, stating: "All detainees are provided with 3 meals a day, clean water, clothing, bedding, showers, soap, and toiletries." The spokesperson acknowledged an Aug. 22 fire outside the Natchez, Mississippi facility that affected hot water and kitchen services but said the facility was back to full operation by August 24.

Some conservative commentators have argued that the flood of habeas petitions represents an attempt to overwhelm the court system as a delay tactic, rather than genuine legal challenges to detention authority. They note that most judges who have ruled on these cases have sided with detainees against the administration, suggesting judicial bias rather than legitimate legal concerns drives extended proceedings in some districts.

What the Left Is Saying

Immigration advocates argue that lengthy delays in habeas proceedings undermine a fundamental constitutional right designed to protect individual liberty. The habeas statute is intended to be adjudicated quickly because a person's freedom is at stake, and legal groups say prolonged waits defeat the purpose of the protection.

"Delay is undesirable in all aspects of our justice system, but it is especially to be avoided in the sensitive context of habeas corpus," the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit wrote in a 1988 decision cited by advocates.

Liudmila Nafikov, whose husband has been detained in a Mississippi facility for nearly two years awaiting a ruling on his habeas case, described conditions at the facility. "The amount of food they are being given is simply not enough, and people are left hungry," she said. "For three days, they have had no hot food or hot water." She added: "I do not believe it is fair or humane to keep people in these conditions for such a long time, especially people who have committed no crime and people who are sick."

Immigrant rights organizations contend that detainees with no criminal convictions should not face extended incarceration while awaiting decisions. Some advocates have described the variation in processing times across districts as creating a lottery system where liberty depends on geography rather than the merits of individual cases.

What the Numbers Show

ProPublica analyzed court records for more than 70,000 habeas petitions filed since January 2025 as of Aug. 25. Key findings include:

Mississippi had the longest median resolution time among resolved cases at 92 days or more. Louisiana also experienced significant delays with judges taking three months or longer on average.

Texas, California and Florida courts handled thousands of additional habeas petitions but typically reached decisions in about six weeks (approximately 45 days).

Minnesota courts, which saw a surge in filings during an immigration enforcement push earlier this year, achieved the fastest resolution times with a median of approximately 12 days.

The vast majority of federal judges who have ruled on these cases have decided against the Trump administration, according to reporting by Politico. Lawyers told ProPublica that judges more receptive to habeas relief often issue decisions relatively quickly.

The Bottom Line

The variation in habeas case resolution times has created a system where an immigrant's chances for a timely hearing depend significantly on which federal district receives their case. While the Constitution guarantees the right to challenge unlawful detention, practical access to that right varies widely across jurisdictions.

Courts continue to work through backlogs as new petition filings have slowed somewhat but remain far higher than pre-Trump administration levels. Advocates and families of detainees are watching for whether Congress or the federal court system will take steps to standardize processing times and ensure that habeas corpus remains a meaningful protection rather than a delayed formality.