A federal judge in Texas just drew a bright line around the rights of a child. I have reviewed U.S. District Judge Fred Biery’s order directing the immediate release of 5-year-old Liam Conejo Ramos and his father from ICE custody. The ruling, sharp in tone and firm in law, puts immigration enforcement on notice. Detaining a young child without clear legal footing is not going to stand.
What Judge Biery Ordered
Judge Biery, who sits in the Western District of Texas in San Antonio, ordered ICE to release Liam and his father without delay. The pair were first detained in Minnesota, then transferred to Texas. The court rejected the government’s rationale for holding a kindergartener while his case moved forward. The order makes clear that agency convenience cannot eclipse a child’s liberty. It also states that immigration custody must follow the Constitution and the statutes that bind every federal officer.
Biery’s language leaves little doubt. The government’s position, as presented to him, did not justify detaining a 5-year-old. The court signaled that due process does not shrink because a family is in removal proceedings. It grows more urgent, because a young child is involved.
This ruling underscores a core point. The government can enforce immigration law, but it must do so within constitutional guardrails, especially when a child is at stake.
The Legal Ceiling on Child Detention
This case turns on limits that have existed for years. Courts have long restricted how the government detains minors. The Flores framework, federal statutes on child welfare, and the due process clause all push in one direction. Children in civil custody must be treated with special care, and detention must be narrowly tailored.
Judge Biery’s order tracks that logic. Family detention cannot be a default. The state must show a legal basis, a need, and a process that respects basic rights. When a child’s liberty is on the line, the court will scrutinize the record. If it does not add up, release is the remedy.
The decision also highlights habeas corpus, the ancient tool that tests unlawful custody. In plain terms, if the government cannot justify why a child is in a cell, a federal judge can force the door open. That is what happened here.
Accountability for ICE and DHS
This order will ripple through ICE and DHS policy. Field offices now face a clear warning. Transfers that move children across state lines without solid legal reasons will face fast judicial pushback. So will decisions that ignore less restrictive alternatives, like release to family, supervised appearance plans, or coordination with child welfare agencies.
Expect internal guidance to get tightened. Expect legal review of cases that involve minors. And expect that judges will ask hard questions when the files land on their desks.
- Review all current cases involving minors for legal sufficiency and alternatives to detention
- Document best interest analysis and due process steps in every family case file
- Coordinate earlier with HHS and child welfare experts, not after transfer
- Train agents on court standards for detaining children and on release planning
[IMAGE_2]
Failure to follow court limits can invite injunctions, contempt hearings, and damages. Agencies should treat this as a compliance order, not a one-off.
What This Means for Families
Families now have a clear signal. If a young child is held without a strong legal basis, federal court relief is available. That relief can come fast, even when the family has been moved from one state to another. Geography does not erase rights. Transit does not suspend due process.
Parents should keep documents, hearing notices, and A-numbers organized. Legal counsel can move quickly if the record is ready. Community groups and legal aid providers should update intake questions and screening tools to spot urgent child custody issues.
Know your basics. You can ask to speak to a lawyer. You do not have to sign papers you do not understand. You can request to keep your child with a safe family member while your case proceeds.
What Comes Next
The government can seek a stay or appeal, but that would be an uphill climb if the record is thin. More likely, agencies will comply and reassess protocols involving minors. Oversight bodies will take interest. Inspectors general, civil rights offices, and congressional committees may ask how and why this child was detained and moved.
Courts in other districts will read Judge Biery’s order. They will see a template. If ICE detains a young child without clear legal grounds, the remedy is release. Policy will shift to match that legal reality, because litigation risk is now higher and more immediate.
The Bottom Line
Judge Fred Biery has sent a clear message from San Antonio. Immigration law is still law, but so is the Constitution. A 5-year-old cannot be treated as an afterthought in the machinery of enforcement. Today’s order restores a small child’s freedom. It also restores a vital boundary, one that protects families, guides officers, and anchors our system to due process. The rule is simple. When the government takes a child’s liberty, it must meet the law’s highest test, or it must let the child go. ⚖️
