When a judge appointed by former President Donald Trump castigates federal immigration authorities for constitutional violations, it's clear that the rule of law hangs in a precarious balance. U.S. District Judge Nancy Brasel recently issued a scathing ruling against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), spotlighting severe breaches of constitutional rights at Minnesota’s Whipple Federal Building.

In her decision, Judge Brasel granted a temporary restraining order, mandating immediate reforms by ICE. She emphasized that the U.S. Constitution does not allow the government to arrest numerous individuals and then neglect their rights simply because upholding these rights presents a challenge. This statement, though seemingly straightforward, rings alarm bells about the state of constitutional observance in 2026.

The court was presented with compelling evidence by the plaintiffs, consisting of noncitizen detainees and a nonprofit legal advocacy group. They detailed systemic failings by ICE, including inadequate legal access and rapid, unannounced transfers that disrupt legal representation. In stark contrast, ICE’s defense was weak, relying on vague assertions that failed to address or refute the detailed accusations.

Details of the judge’s order reveal a system seemingly designed to obstruct detainees' constitutional rights. Processes at the Whipple Building hamper detainees' access to legal counsel through rapid transfers and lack of proper communication facilities. Detainees are provided with phone lists that do not specify which numbers belong to legal service providers, and the available phones are placed in areas where private conversations can be easily overheard by ICE personnel. Moreover, physical barriers to attorney access and prohibitions on detainees' rights to send mail or emails further illustrate the systemic disregard for constitutional protections.

Judge Brasel's order now requires ICE to allow detainees in-person visits with their lawyers seven days a week and provide free, private, and unmonitored telephone calls to both counsel and family members within one hour of detention and before any transfer out of state.

This ruling is not revolutionary; it simply reaffirms basic constitutional rights. However, the necessity of such a ruling from a Trump-appointed judge underlines a troubling normalization of constitutional shortcuts in immigration enforcement. As the legal system continues to grapple with these issues, this case serves as a crucial reminder of the ongoing challenges in safeguarding the rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.