Colorado’s federal judges are maintaining their view that the government’s assertion of broad immigration detention authority is unlawful, casting aside a recent appellate decision to the contrary as “unpersuasive” and out of step with the predominant interpretation by the judiciary.

However, several judges are speaking out forcefully about the behavior from the government, including missed deadlines, violations of orders, and potential constitutional problems.

Beginning last year, a wave of “habeas corpus” cases flooded Colorado’s U.S. District Court, pushing annual civil filings to more than 4,000 for seemingly the first time. Largely, the petitions challenging immigration detention stem from the federal government’s interpretation of its authority to detain people without releasing them on bond while their removal proceedings unfold.

Broadly, the government decided in mid-2025 that the mandatory detentions authorized for those “seeking admission” to the country extend to those who have been present in the United States for years.

“That’s wrong,” wrote Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney in September, issuing the first ruling in Colorado to reject the government’s interpretation.

Since then, Sweeney and other judges in Colorado have echoed the conclusion from a majority of judges around the country who found that people already present in the U.S. were not “seeking admission.” Therefore, they were generally entitled to hearings to evaluate their suitability for release.

One of those decisions is now on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, which has the power to set a binding interpretation of the law for federal judges in Colorado and five neighboring states to follow.

‘THOROUGH REBUTTAL’

Then, on Feb. 6, a three-judge panel of the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit issued a decision rejecting the majority view from the judiciary.

The government is now “exercising its full enforcement authority,” wrote Judge Edith H. Jones for herself and Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan, both appointees of Republican presidents. They reasoned that the government’s view equalized the treatment between those arriving and those present, in line with Congress’s intent.

Judge Dana M. Douglas, a Joe Biden appointee, dissented. She argued the phrase “seeking admission” is limited to “noncitizens ‘arriving’ at the border.” Douglas further quoted from a 2018 U.S. Supreme Court decision that laid out the legal distinction between people “seeking admission” and people “already in the country.”

Three days later, Sweeney again became the first judge in Colorado to respond to the 5th Circuit’s decision. She declined to second-guess her original interpretation of the law “simply because a divided panel in a different judicial circuit reached an unpersuasive conclusion to the contrary.”

Sweeney, a Biden appointee, added that she, “respectfully, declines to adopt the (circuit) majority’s characterization of district courts’ critical thinking and thoroughness as undue language-parsing.”

Since then, other judges in Colorado have followed her lead and maintained the court’s mainstream view.

“The Court has reviewed the Fifth Circuit’s opinion but is instead persuaded by District Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney’s analysis,” wrote Judge S. Kato Crews, “wherein she surgically dismantles the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning.”

“Judge Sweeney’s thorough rebuttal of that divided decision provides a solid foundation to maintain the consensus that exists in this District,” added Magistrate Judge Cyrus Y. Chung.

Crews, a Biden appointee, also expressed his gratitude to the government’s attorneys, he said, who have toned-down their defense of an interpretation that is out of step with the views of the district court.

“It doesn’t serve anybody well, any of us, to get cute with stuff and waste time and so on,” he told a lawyer with the U.S. Attorney’s Office earlier this month. “We’re all being inundated with these cases, and the way we can be more efficient in resolving them is better for all of us. I want to acknowledge the candor and say I appreciate it.”

Other concerns

However, the judges have begun to react publicly to actions by the government.

After the U.S. Attorney’s Office failed to file a status report by the deadline she imposed, Sweeney blasted the lawyer involved.

“Court orders are neither suggestions nor guidelines,” wrote Sweeney on Feb. 10, the day after the deadline. The government has “not even attempted to explain their lack of compliance with this clear, unequivocal, and explicit directive which, according to the status report Petitioner was forced to file, should have been submitted to the Court by February 9, 2026.”

The U.S. Attorney’s Office declined to comment.

On Feb. 19, Senior Judge William J. Martínez criticized the same attorney, Katherine Ross, for seeking an extension of time because she neglected to note the deadline Martínez had set to respond to a motion.

“All counsel in the office of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Colorado who will be representing Respondents in pending or future immigration habeas actions are on notice that, going forward, the Court expects that its briefing deadlines will be honored,” wrote Martínez, a Barack Obama appointee. “Attorney Ross is DIRECTED to file, by no later than tomorrow, February 20, 2026, a certificate attesting to the fact that she disseminated a copy of this Order to all attorneys in the Office.”

Finally, on the same day as Martínez’s order, Crews issued a decision with an explicit rebuke of the government’s attempt to keep a man detained in immigration custody.

“It appears that Respondents, and potentially the immigration judge, seek yet another way to insulate the government’s unconstitutional behavior from this Court’s review. Indeed, the cruelty appears to be the point,” he wrote. “But this Court will not turn a blind eye to the constitutional protections due to all individuals in this country, including noncitizens. Respondents should endeavor to do the same.”

The Denver office for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement did not respond to an email asking about Crews’ order.