CHICAGO (LN) — A Seventh Circuit panel on Tuesday affirmed a district court’s decision to extend a major consent decree governing ICE warrantless arrests by 118 days, while reversing an order that would have released approximately 200 potential class members on bond or alternatives to detention. The panel, however, affirmed the release of 13 confirmed class members.
The ruling in Margarito Castañon-Nava v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security resolves a dispute over whether the government could unilaterally terminate the 2022 agreement, which required ICE to comply with 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2) when making warrantless arrests.
U.S. Circuit Judge Amy Coney Lee, writing for the panel, held that DHS had waived its argument that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) barred the extension because the agency had previously raised and then abandoned the objection during settlement negotiations.
“Consent decrees are entered into by parties to a case after careful negotiation has produced agreement on their precise terms,” Lee wrote, citing Supreme Court precedent.
The district court had extended the decree by 118 days — matching the period between a June 2025 email from a senior DHS official declaring the agreement terminated and the court’s October 2025 order. The panel agreed the extension was a reasonable remedy for DHS’s substantial noncompliance.
However, the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s November 2025 order releasing approximately 200 potential class members. The panel held that the release order violated the consent decree and § 1252(f)(1) because it impermissibly restrained the government’s operation of mandatory detention provisions and released individuals without a determination that their arrests violated the decree.
Lee also addressed a split among federal courts over whether § 1225(b)(2)(A) applies to noncitizens already inside the United States. She concluded the statute applies only to those “seeking admission”, rejecting the government’s broader interpretation.
Despite that statutory interpretation, the panel ruled the district court lacked authority to issue a classwide injunction releasing detainees based on that theory, as it would interfere with the government’s enforcement of covered detention statutes and violate the consent decree's terms.
The case began in 2018 when plaintiffs alleged ICE violated federal law by arresting noncitizens without reason to believe they were likely to escape before warrants could be obtained.
The consent decree, negotiated across two administrations, required ICE to issue a “Broadcast Statement of Policy” affirming its obligations under § 1357(a)(2) and to maintain records of warrantless arrests.
DHS argued the district court exceeded its authority by extending the decree and releasing detainees, claiming the agency’s mandatory detention powers were absolute.
The panel included U.S. Circuit Judges Frank Kirsch, Amy Coney Lee, and Diane Wood Pryor.