In a striking display of judicial consensus, a comprehensive survey conducted by Politico reveals that all federal district court judges who have presided over cases involving the Trump administration's "mandatory detention" policy for immigrants pending deportation have ruled against it. This policy, which sought to detain certain immigrants without bond until their deportation proceedings were completed, has faced significant legal challenges across the political spectrum.

To date, 411 federal judges have heard cases related to this policy. Remarkably, not a single judge has sided with the administration, signaling a strong judicial rebuke of the policy’s legality and perhaps its morality. This group of judges spans appointments made by every president from Ronald Reagan to Joe Biden, highlighting the policy's broad disapproval irrespective of political affiliation.

The policy, introduced during Donald Trump's presidency, aimed at detaining immigrants who had committed crimes or were awaiting deportation, was intended to enhance public safety and border security. Critics, however, argued that it infringed on individual rights and failed to consider the nuances of each case, such as the severity of the crime and the individual's ties to the community.

Legal experts suggest that the unanimous opposition from the judiciary reflects concerns over constitutional rights and humanitarian implications. "The breadth of disapproval across judges appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents underscores the legal community's commitment to fundamental rights," says legal scholar Elena Marks. "This isn’t just about legal precedent; it’s about protecting the principles of justice and fairness."

The implications of these rulings are significant. They not only halt the practice of mandatory detention under the specified policy but also set a robust legal precedent for future cases involving immigration detention practices. Advocates for immigrants' rights have hailed these decisions as pivotal victories that could lead to more humane treatment of immigrants facing deportation.

As the legal battles over immigration policies continue, the overwhelming judicial response to this policy serves as a critical reminder of the judiciary's role in upholding constitutional values against executive measures deemed overreaching or unjust. The complete findings and details of Politico’s investigation are expected to further illuminate the judiciary's stance and influence future policy formulations.