Colorado’s U.S. District Court judges have responded in recent days to the government’s violations of or unclear compliance with their orders in immigration detention cases, resulting in directives to immediately free the petitioners.

“I’m just struggling to understand how he was removed from the United States even though (the government acknowledges) he could not be removed,” Judge Nina Y. Wang said on a May 21 call in response to the government’s deportation of a petitioner to Nigeria in contravention of her order.

Colorado’s federal trial court is facing a flood of “habeas corpus” petitions from those in immigration detention. The most common allegation is that the government is improperly denying bond hearings to people who are eligible by law. Colorado’s judges, like the vast majority of their peers nationwide, have generally agreed with that argument.

Earlier this month, POLITICO reported that there were 10,400 decisions nationwide finding unlawful detention, compared with only 1,200 siding with the government. Senior Judge William J. Martínez recently warned that immigration bond hearings may be a “sham,” and Senior Judge R. Brooke Jackson has agreed that the evidence supports that conclusion.

This week, two separate federal judges addressed the problematic rulings of one immigration judge.

On May 19, Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney immediately released a habeas petitioner after she originally ordered last month that he receive a bond hearing to determine his suitability for release while his immigration proceedings unfolded. In her original order, Sweeney specified that the government would have to demonstrate by “clear and convincing evidence” that the man was either a flight risk or a danger to the community.

Days later, the petitioner’s attorney characterized the bond hearing before Immigration Judge Bobbie C. Masters as a “kangaroo court.” Sweeney agreed that Masters did not follow her order. Specifically, when Masters determined the man’s release would present an “unacceptable flight risk,” she relied on a birth certificate for the man’s daughter and his “little incentive to appear for future immigration proceedings,” based on Masters’ own speculation about his likelihood of remaining in the country.

“Problems plague this analysis and its outcome. First, this order neglects numerous evidentiary submissions provided by Petitioner,” wrote Sweeney, referring to the man’s mortgage, employment, and single-parent status, all suggesting he was not a flight risk.

“Compounding this error is the IJ’s speculation as to whether Petitioner could secure relief from removal,” she continued. “Virtually all of the record went unacknowledged in the IJ’s bond memorandum and finding that bond denial was warranted. Each of these errors, standing alone, presents a constitutional infirmity. The same is true when considering them together. As such, Respondents are wrong to argue the bond memorandum is in ‘accord with this Court’s order’ or due process.”

That same day, Chief Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak convened a hearing in his courtroom to respond to another allegation that Masters disobeyed his order in a different case. As did Sweeney, Varholak ordered an immigration judge to hold a bond hearing at which the government would have to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the petitioner should remain in custody.

In the audio of the bond hearing, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s attorney acknowledged he had no argument that the petitioner was dangerous. He briefly suggested that an untimely asylum application was proof of flight risk.

The petitioner’s attorney referenced letters of support from friends and family, the existence of a “reliable and credible sponsor,” a different active immigration application, and his length of residence in the U.S.

She also referenced Varholak’s order and the government’s burden of proof.

“The court finds the respondent is an extreme flight risk and no bond amount will mitigate that,” said Masters immediately after the attorney stopped speaking. She then relied on arguments the government’s attorney did not raise.

Varholak was troubled by the ruling.

“Had the government come in and said nothing, we’d have the same result. And so, how is that clear and convincing evidence? The judge did not rely on a single thing the government either presented or argued,” Varholak said. “And I don’t require perfection out of the immigration court, but you’d think that somewhere, we’d see the judge use those words, ‘clear and convincing.’ And the judge doesn’t.”

Nonetheless, “I’m not sure it’s clear that my order either was or wasn’t” complied with, he continued.

Varholak ultimately ordered another bond hearing in front of a different immigration judge.

Finally, Wang encountered multiple problems with her cases.

On May 15, she directly released a man after previously ordering a bond hearing at which an unnamed immigration judge ignored the government’s burden of proof. Wang reasoned that the man’s “due process rights were violated again at the deficient bond hearing. The Court sees no reason to order another bond hearing — and risk a third constitutional violation — and prolong the detention that this Court has already determined is unlawful.”

That same day, she decided to release another man whom the government unlawfully arrested without a warrant.

“To hold otherwise would simply turn a blind eye to the irreparable harms of unlawful conduct that reverberate well beyond the warrantless arrests,” she wrote.

In a third decision, also on May 15, Wang further found that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s disregard of its own regulations amounted to a due process violation, triggering another man’s release.

Finally, during the call on Thursday about the man deported to Nigeria despite an order requiring him to remain in Colorado while his habeas case unfolded, ICE representative Sean Christner acknowledged that “a hold was not put on there (the man’s file). It just was missed.”

Wang characterized the government’s actions as an “inexcusable mistake” in “ignoring” her order.