Chief Judge Daniel D. Domenico broke with his peers on Colorado’s U.S. District Court last week in siding with the government’s argument about the broad scope of its immigration detention authority.

In an April 15 order finding that a man was properly in custody without a bond hearing, Domenico acknowledged his view is the outlier locally and nationally.

“The majority of district courts, including all of the judges in this District who have addressed the issue, have found that detention of noncitizens similar to the petitioner under (the mandatory detention provision) is improper,” wrote Domenico, a first-term appointee of President Donald Trump. “There are legitimate arguments on both sides.”

Beginning last year, a wave of “habeas corpus” cases flooded Colorado’s federal trial 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 an extended period.

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

Since then, all of the district judges and magistrate judges in Colorado who have encountered the issue have echoed the conclusion from a majority of judges around the country: People already present in the U.S. are not “seeking admission.” Therefore, they are generally entitled to hearings to evaluate their suitability for release, or in some instances outright 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. That case is currently in the briefing stage.

In the meantime, three circuit courts elsewhere have weighed in.

The Chicago-based Seventh Circuit, while deciding a procedural question, reiterated the majority view disagreeing with the government’s broad mandatory detention authority. But in a pair of 2-1 decisions, the New Orleans-based Fifth Circuit and the St. Louis-based Eighth Circuit rejected the dominant view from the judiciary.

The majorities in those appeals reasoned that a person who has been unlawfully present the United States is still “seeking admission.” Therefore, they fall under the provision of law authorizing detention without a bond hearing.

Domenico, the lone Trump appointee to Colorado’s district court, wrote in his April 15 order that he found such reasoning persuasive in the case of an Indian man who was apprehended near the border in 2024, was released, and was then taken into custody again last November.

“While I appreciate the analyses of the judges in this District and elsewhere who have reached the opposite conclusion, regrettably for the petitioner, I am persuaded that the Fifth and Eighth Circuits and the growing minority of district courts,” Domenico wrote, “have the better interpretation of the statutory text.”

He added: “The fact that district courts have reached inconsistent outcomes in these cases is unfortunate.”

“We are deeply saddened by Judge Domenico’s decision, as it is contrary to the numerous orders we have seen from his colleagues,” said attorney Lisa Guerra, who represents the petitioner, Gurmeet Singh.

Domenico issued a nearly identical order in another case on April 22. Notably, he added a quotation from a district judge in the Western District of Tennessee, who wrote that the government’s new views of the law “are, without a doubt, difficult changes for Petitioner and the multitude of other similarly situated individuals nationwide. The Court is sensitive to the impact this has on them, their families, and the ties that many of them have developed in this country.”

While the government’s invocation of mandatory detention continues to be the dominant issue, it is not the only grounds on which judges are deciding whether habeas petitioners are properly detained. On April 10, for example, Domenico ordered an Iranian man’s release after concluding there was no final deportation order and the government was unlawfully keeping him in custody.