Obama Judge FREES 4 Murderers and Child Predators!

Gavel and scales of justice on wooden table.

A federal judge in Louisiana just ordered ICE to release four immigrants convicted of murder and child sex abuse, sparking a firestorm over whether due process protections apply to long-term U.S. residents who can’t be deported—regardless of their criminal pasts.

Story Snapshot

Judge John deGravelles ordered immediate release of four detainees from Louisiana’s Angola prison after ICE re-detained them without justification
DHS characterized the men as three murderers and a pedophile, while advocates described elderly, long-term residents with health issues previously deemed low-risk
The detainees had lived in the U.S. between 45 and 59 years, with no realistic deportation prospects
The ruling represents the first major challenge to ICE’s 2025 detention expansion in Louisiana and highlights a nationwide pattern of contested re-detentions

When Due Process Collides With Criminal Records

U.S. District Judge John deGravelles gave ICE three hours on February 6, 2026, to release four immigrants from Camp 57 at Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola. The men ranged from 43 to 72 years old, with decades of U.S. residency behind them. One suffers from Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s after 45 years in America. Another received Convention Against Torture protection, meaning deportation would place him at risk of persecution. ICE had previously released all four after determining they posed no flight risk or public danger, yet re-detained them during summer 2025 without explanation or evidence that deportation had become feasible.

The Department of Homeland Security quickly condemned the decision, issuing a statement labeling the men “three murderers and a pedophile.” Conservative outlets amplified this characterization, noting deGravelles received his appointment from President Obama. Yet court documents contained no details about specific convictions, and advocates emphasized that ICE itself had earlier assessed these individuals as safe for supervised release. The detainees had complied with routine check-ins for years. Three were apprehended at those very check-ins; the fourth was taken from his home. The contradiction raises uncomfortable questions about whether ICE’s re-detention wave prioritized enforcement theater over actual public safety assessments.

Angola’s Dark History Meets Immigration Enforcement

Camp 57 operates within Angola, a Louisiana facility notorious for its history of forced labor and systemic racism. The Trump administration repurposed this maximum-security prison for immigration detention in 2025, a choice that immigration attorneys call emblematic of broader cruelty in enforcement tactics. Bridget Pranzatelli of the National Immigration Project expressed relief at the release but demanded Angola’s closure as an immigration detention site altogether. Rights Behind Bars attorney Lillian Novak described the case as part of a national pattern where ICE re-detains immigrants without legal justification, effectively circumventing prior judicial and administrative determinations that release was appropriate.

The Angola setting amplifies concerns about conditions and treatment. Detainees held for months in a facility designed for violent offenders faced an environment far removed from civil immigration detention standards. Judge deGravelles ruled that ICE violated its own regulations by failing to provide evidence justifying re-detention or demonstrating any change in circumstances. The agency offered no proof that the men had become flight risks, posed new dangers, or that their home countries would suddenly accept them after years of refusal. This absence of justification formed the crux of the due process violation the court identified.

Obama-Appointed Judge Lets Illegal Alien Convicts Walk Free from ICE https://t.co/Eq1hwFeE8k

These monsters should be released into the home of the Judge. He should be liable for any crime committed following their release.

— Karen Plechaty (@plechaty66947) February 12, 2026

A Nationwide Pattern of Defiance Emerges

Louisiana’s ruling joins a growing list of federal court decisions rebuking ICE for unlawful detentions. A Politico review of hundreds of cases documented judges across the country—appointed by presidents of both parties—expressing frustration with ICE’s noncompliance. In Washington, Judge Lauren King released a DACA-eligible Indonesian man after ten months when ICE made no removal efforts. In Minnesota, Judge Susan Nelson resorted to tracking a detainee’s belongings via UPS to ensure ICE honored release conditions. Judges have imposed specific requirements like weather-appropriate clothing and safe transportation, anticipating agency resistance. This pattern suggests systemic institutional defiance rather than isolated incidents.

The deGravelles ruling arrives amid ICE’s post-2024 detention expansion under the Trump administration. The agency targeted immigrants previously released under supervision, often individuals who had completed criminal sentences years earlier and maintained compliance with monitoring requirements. Courts nationwide increasingly rejected these indefinite holds, noting that detention without deportation prospects violates constitutional protections. Yet ICE continues the practice, prompting a wave of habeas corpus petitions and judicial rebukes. The tension between executive enforcement priorities and judicial oversight intensifies with each ruling, raising fundamental questions about the limits of immigration detention authority.

Where Public Safety Meets Legal Reality

The DHS statement emphasized violent criminal convictions to frame the release as dangerous judicial activism. That messaging resonates with Americans understandably concerned about public safety and immigration enforcement. Yet the legal reality proves more complex than soundbites allow. These four men cannot be deported—their countries won’t accept them, or deportation would violate international law. They previously satisfied ICE that release under supervision adequately managed any risk. Re-detaining them accomplished nothing except prolonged incarceration at taxpayer expense in one of America’s most notorious prisons. Judge deGravelles applied established law requiring evidence and due process, standards that protect citizens and non-citizens alike from arbitrary government detention.

The case crystallizes the collision between enforcement rhetoric and constitutional constraints. Americans rightly expect immigration laws to be enforced and dangerous criminals to face consequences. But indefinite detention without deportation prospects or due process hearings crosses into territory where government power operates unchecked. Conservative principles traditionally emphasize limiting government overreach and requiring justification for deprivations of liberty. The detainees’ criminal histories warrant serious concern, but ICE’s own prior risk assessments and the impossibility of deportation demand a legal framework beyond perpetual imprisonment. Courts applying that framework consistently—whether appointed by Obama, Biden, or other presidents—suggests the law, not politics, drives these decisions.