Legal news USA: Federal prosecutors in Washington state say they no longer have enough resources to defend the government in every lawsuit filed by immigrants challenging their detention by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The decision marks a significant development in the growing legal battle over the Trump administration’s immigration detention policies.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Washington plans to stop opposing many immigration detention cases, allowing federal judges to consider petitions without the usual arguments from government lawyers. Acting U.S. Attorney Charles Floyd explained that the increasing number of lawsuits has placed an unsustainable workload on prosecutors.
The announcement comes as thousands of detained immigrants across the United States turn to federal courts to challenge their continued detention. These cases, known as habeas corpus petitions, have created additional pressure on federal judges, government attorneys and immigration legal services.
The development raises important questions about immigration detention, federal court backlogs, ICE enforcement and the legal rights of people held in immigration custody.
Washington Prosecutors Say They Cannot Handle Every ICE Detention Lawsuit
In a letter dated October 26, 2026, Acting U.S. Attorney Charles Floyd informed Chief U.S. District Judge David Estudillo that his office could no longer enter appearances in every immigration habeas case filed in the district.
Floyd said the lawsuits frequently involve extensive legal work, including court hearings, written responses, motions and additional proceedings. The growing workload, he explained, has consumed substantial time from assistant U.S. attorneys.
The letter stated that the office did not have enough available resources to continue appearing in every one of the dozens of habeas petitions filed each week.
Floyd also warned that the volume of immigration detention litigation was affecting the government’s ability to respond to other civil lawsuits. Prosecutors must balance immigration cases with other responsibilities handled by the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
As a result, the office intends to conserve resources by declining to defend the government in many of these cases.
However, the policy does not mean prosecutors will abandon every immigration detention lawsuit. Floyd did not specify exactly how many cases would go unanswered or establish that every petition would receive the same treatment.
Why the Decision Matters for Immigrants Held by ICE
The decision could change how quickly some detained immigrants obtain judicial consideration of their release requests.
Previously, government attorneys generally participated in the litigation by responding to petitions and presenting arguments defending the detention. Those responses could include factual explanations, legal positions and challenges to the detainee’s claims.
When prosecutors do not participate, judges may have fewer arguments from the government to consider. That could make it easier for some detainees to obtain favorable rulings when their petitions establish a legal basis for release.
Nevertheless, an unopposed lawsuit does not automatically guarantee freedom. Federal judges must still examine the legal claims, review the available evidence and determine whether the detention violates applicable law.
The distinction is important because immigration detention cases involve individual circumstances. A court’s decision in one case does not automatically determine the outcome of another person’s petition.
Nearly 100,000 Immigration Habeas Cases Filed Nationwide
The situation in Washington reflects a much larger national increase in lawsuits challenging immigration detention.
According to ProPublica’s immigration habeas tracker, 93,245 immigration-related habeas cases had been filed in federal district courts since January 2025, based on data through November 3, 2026.
The number demonstrates the scale of the legal workload facing federal courts. ProPublica reported that immigrants filed more habeas cases during the first 13 months of President Donald Trump’s second administration than during the previous three administrations combined, including Trump’s first term.
The Western District of Washington alone had received approximately 2,000 of these cases by early November, according to reporting based on ProPublica’s data.
The national figures have also attracted attention from senior administration officials. Border czar Tom Homan recently told Fox News that courts were dealing with approximately 85,000 immigration habeas cases.
That figure was an estimate cited by Homan, while ProPublica’s tracker provided a separate count based on its case data. Both figures illustrate the substantial pressure immigration detention lawsuits have placed on the federal court system.
What Is a Habeas Corpus Petition in an Immigration Case?
A habeas corpus petition is a legal request asking a court to examine whether a person is being held lawfully.
In immigration detention cases, a person held by ICE can file a petition in federal court arguing that the government does not have a lawful basis to continue holding them.
The process gives detained individuals an opportunity to challenge their custody before a federal judge. It is particularly important when detainees believe their detention violates federal law or their legal rights.
A habeas petition is not the same as an appeal against deportation. It primarily challenges the legality of detention rather than deciding whether someone should ultimately be allowed to remain in the United States.
The recent surge followed changes in the administration’s approach to immigration detention and access to bond hearings. Under the policy described in the reporting, many detainees who previously might have sought release through immigration proceedings instead had to turn to federal courts.
This increased the number of cases requiring judges to examine detention decisions and government lawyers to prepare responses.
Why Federal Prosecutors Must Respond to These Cases
When an immigrant files a habeas petition, the federal government is generally given an opportunity to explain why the detention should continue.
Government lawyers may need to obtain records, review immigration documents, examine the circumstances surrounding an arrest and prepare legal arguments.
Some cases also require additional hearings and follow-up proceedings after a judge issues a decision.
That workload becomes difficult to manage when dozens of new petitions arrive every week. Prosecutors must also handle unrelated civil litigation and other legal responsibilities.
Floyd’s October letter indicated that the immigration cases were affecting the office’s ability to perform those other duties.
The decision therefore highlights a resource problem within the Justice Department as well as a growing dispute over federal immigration enforcement.
Federal Judges May Have Greater Control Over Release Proceedings
The policy change could give federal judges a more direct role in moving certain immigration release cases forward.
One notable detail in Floyd’s letter was his suggestion that courts could contact the ICE detention facility in Tacoma, Washington, directly by email when an immigrant is ordered released.
That recommendation could help judges communicate release instructions without waiting for the usual government attorney involvement in every case.
The issue is significant because a court order granting release may require additional coordination with immigration authorities and the detention facility.
However, the suggestion does not eliminate the legal and administrative procedures involved in carrying out a release. ICE must still process the relevant instructions and follow the court’s order.
The policy also does not give judges unlimited authority to release every person held in immigration custody. Their decisions remain subject to federal law and the facts of each case.
A Seattle Judge Criticizes the Government’s Failure to Respond
The resource problem has already appeared in individual court proceedings.
Federal District Judge Kymberly Evanson criticized the government’s failure to respond in one immigration habeas case. In a ruling made public over the weekend, she said the government had access to the relevant information about the petitioner’s detention but had not provided a factual or legal basis to challenge the request.
Evanson wrote that the government’s failure to oppose the petition amounted to forfeiture of arguments it could have presented.
Her decision illustrates why the absence of a government response can matter in immigration detention litigation. When prosecutors do not challenge a petition, the judge may have fewer competing arguments before making a decision.
Still, each case must be assessed individually. A judge’s ruling in one petition does not establish a blanket rule that all detained immigrants must be released.
Trump Administration Immigration Policies Face Growing Legal Pressure
The Washington prosecutors’ decision comes amid wider legal challenges to the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement strategy.
The administration has pursued a hard-line approach to immigration detention, leading to disputes over whether certain immigrants can remain in custody without an opportunity for a bond hearing.
Federal courts have reached different conclusions about the government’s authority in these cases.
Most federal appeals courts that have considered the issue have found that certain immigrants are entitled to bond hearings while challenging their detention. However, the 5th and 8th Circuit Courts of Appeals have reached different conclusions in cases involving people accused of entering or remaining in the United States unlawfully.
These conflicting decisions have increased uncertainty over how immigration detention laws should be applied across the country.
The U.S. Supreme Court is also expected to consider the legal question of whether immigrants who have been living in the United States are entitled to hearings to determine whether they should remain detained while their deportation cases continue.
The court’s consideration could have major implications for immigration detention procedures and the future of bond hearings.
Immigration Rights Groups Criticize the Growing Court Backlog
Immigrant rights advocates have criticized the administration’s detention policies and the growing number of cases reaching federal courts.
Mark Fleming, director of policy at the National Immigrant Justice Center, said the increase in habeas petitions reflected the consequences of the administration’s detention approach.
He argued that federal prosecutors were being forced to spend significant resources defending immigration detentions instead of addressing other matters that affect communities.
The debate also raises concerns about access to legal representation. Filing a federal habeas petition can be complicated, particularly for people who are detained and may have limited access to legal assistance.
Immigration attorneys and advocacy organizations have warned that people without adequate legal support may struggle to understand court procedures, prepare documents and meet filing deadlines.
The Supreme Court’s consideration of detention-related legal questions could further shape the rights and options available to immigrants.
What Happens Next in Washington Immigration Detention Cases?
For now, federal judges in the Western District of Washington will continue reviewing immigration detention petitions, including cases in which government lawyers do not enter appearances.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office has not publicly specified how many cases it expects to leave without a government defense. It also remains unclear how the approach will affect the overall time required to resolve the district’s immigration cases.
The decision could reduce the workload for federal prosecutors, but it may also create new procedural questions for judges and detention facilities handling release orders.
For immigrants held in ICE custody, the development could create an opportunity for some cases to move forward without a government attorney actively opposing their petitions. However, no detainee should assume that the policy guarantees release.
The broader problem extends beyond Seattle and Tacoma. With tens of thousands of immigration detention challenges filed nationwide, federal courts and government agencies face continuing pressure to resolve disputes over detention authority and individual legal rights.
The latest decision makes one point clear: the growing immigration detention caseload is placing serious demands on the federal justice system, and even the Justice Department’s own prosecutors say they cannot keep up with every case.