Down in the Southern District of West Virginia, four federal judges — appointed by presidents of both parties — have spent the last several weeks issuing rulings sounding the alarm over a MAGA immigration initiative dubbed “Operation Country Roads.”
The policy, a partnership between federal and local law enforcement, reportedly netted roughly 650 arrests in January alone, largely targeting immigrants driving along the state’s roadways. What followed was the predictable wave of habeas petitions from people (many without criminal records and with longstanding ties to the United States) challenging their detention by ICE.
What was less predictable? Just how blunt the judges would be.
Politico reports on the resistance coming from deep in Trump country, and what the judges are saying in West Virginia should make anyone sit up and take notice.
In a February 19 opinion Judge Joseph Goodwin did not bother with the usual soft-focus judicial prose.
“Antiseptic judicial rhetoric cannot do justice to what is happening,” wrote the Clinton appointee. He then described agents “masked, anonymous, armed with military weapons, operating from unmarked vehicles, acting without warrants of any kind” seizing people for civil immigration violations and locking them up “without any semblance of due process.”
He didn’t stop there.
“The systematic character of this practice and its deliberate elimination of every structural feature that distinguishes constitutional authority from raw force place it beyond the reach of ordinary legal description,” Goodwin wrote. “It is an assault on the constitutional order.”
In a subsequent opinion he labeled a “final notice,” Goodwin made it crystal clear that the court’s patience had expired:
“The Government is wrong. Judges in this district have said that over and over and over.”
And then, “If officials could repeat practices already determined to be unconstitutional and require each affected person to begin anew … judicial power would be reduced to commentary. The Constitution does not contemplate violations in installments.”
But the pushback hasn’t come from just one judge.
Judge Robert Chambers, another Clinton appointee, lamented that the American dream has been “tarnished” by what he described as illegal detentions.
Judge Irene Berger, an Obama appointee, accused the administration of showing a “lack of respect for the law,” noting that arrests continued at a rapid clip despite multiple rulings declaring the practices unlawful.
Berger’s opinions have been particularly pointed. She pointed out “sloppiness” so bad it makes you wonder what else is messing up. Like when the government accused one ICE detainee of having marijuana possession convictions from 2009.
“The Petitioner was four years old in 2009,” she wrote.
Berger and Judge Thomas Johnston, a George W. Bush appointee, have separately called out the bond process as a sham, and noted ordering more sham hearings isn’t a remedy. Gone are “immigration judges who provide neutral adjudications” replaced with bond that is “systematically denied after a pro forma hearing with a predetermined outcome.”
Johnston, for his part, distilled the stakes in stark terms:
“If the government may simply seize someone without due process, there is no check on its ability to seize anyone.”
And then he delivered the line that cuts through the usual culture-war framing:
“One might say, ‘I don’t care because that only happens to THOSE people.’ Perhaps. But what if someone here legally, or even a United States citizen, is afforded no due process after being seized by mistake? Or by a choice?”
“Fortunately,” he concluded, “our Constitution demands more, including the rule of law, as opposed to the rule of unchecked executive fiat.”
Judge Johnston is right about the constitutional demands, but… is anyone in MAGAland listening? Like Judge Goodwin said, “The problem lies in the attorneys’ clients, federal government actors, who have offered no evidence that they have seen or even care about the legal rulings of this district.”
“The disregard for the law shames every hardworking public servant who toils for the benefit of the country and its people.”
And the only comment the government has made is red-hatted ragebait that’s wildly out-of-touch with what the judges are seeing on the ground, saying he Justice Department “is focused on law and order, public safety, and will not tolerate any violence directed toward law enforcement officials working tirelessly to keep Americans safe, despite the best efforts of activist judges who’d rather see violent illegal criminals walk free.”
Because in 2026 judicial due process concerns are synonymous with activist judges.
Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter @Kathryn1 or Mastodon @Kathryn1@mastodon.social.
The post West Virginia Is Not Here For Authoritarian Cosplay appeared first on Above the Law.
Down in the Southern District of West Virginia, four federal judges — appointed by presidents of both parties — have spent the last several weeks issuing rulings sounding the alarm over a MAGA immigration initiative dubbed “Operation Country Roads.”
The policy, a partnership between federal and local law enforcement, reportedly netted roughly 650 arrests in January alone, largely targeting immigrants driving along the state’s roadways. What followed was the predictable wave of habeas petitions from people (many without criminal records and with longstanding ties to the United States) challenging their detention by ICE.
What was less predictable? Just how blunt the judges would be.
Politico reports on the resistance coming from deep in Trump country, and what the judges are saying in West Virginia should make anyone sit up and take notice.
In a February 19 opinion Judge Joseph Goodwin did not bother with the usual soft-focus judicial prose.
“Antiseptic judicial rhetoric cannot do justice to what is happening,” wrote the Clinton appointee. He then described agents “masked, anonymous, armed with military weapons, operating from unmarked vehicles, acting without warrants of any kind” seizing people for civil immigration violations and locking them up “without any semblance of due process.”
He didn’t stop there.
“The systematic character of this practice and its deliberate elimination of every structural feature that distinguishes constitutional authority from raw force place it beyond the reach of ordinary legal description,” Goodwin wrote. “It is an assault on the constitutional order.”
In a subsequent opinion he labeled a “final notice,” Goodwin made it crystal clear that the court’s patience had expired:
“The Government is wrong. Judges in this district have said that over and over and over.”
And then, “If officials could repeat practices already determined to be unconstitutional and require each affected person to begin anew … judicial power would be reduced to commentary. The Constitution does not contemplate violations in installments.”
But the pushback hasn’t come from just one judge.
Judge Robert Chambers, another Clinton appointee, lamented that the American dream has been “tarnished” by what he described as illegal detentions.
Judge Irene Berger, an Obama appointee, accused the administration of showing a “lack of respect for the law,” noting that arrests continued at a rapid clip despite multiple rulings declaring the practices unlawful.
Berger’s opinions have been particularly pointed. She pointed out “sloppiness” so bad it makes you wonder what else is messing up. Like when the government accused one ICE detainee of having marijuana possession convictions from 2009.
“The Petitioner was four years old in 2009,” she wrote.
Berger and Judge Thomas Johnston, a George W. Bush appointee, have separately called out the bond process as a sham, and noted ordering more sham hearings isn’t a remedy. Gone are “immigration judges who provide neutral adjudications” replaced with bond that is “systematically denied after a pro forma hearing with a predetermined outcome.”
Johnston, for his part, distilled the stakes in stark terms:
“If the government may simply seize someone without due process, there is no check on its ability to seize anyone.”
And then he delivered the line that cuts through the usual culture-war framing:
“One might say, ‘I don’t care because that only happens to THOSE people.’ Perhaps. But what if someone here legally, or even a United States citizen, is afforded no due process after being seized by mistake? Or by a choice?”
“Fortunately,” he concluded, “our Constitution demands more, including the rule of law, as opposed to the rule of unchecked executive fiat.”
Judge Johnston is right about the constitutional demands, but… is anyone in MAGAland listening? Like Judge Goodwin said, “The problem lies in the attorneys’ clients, federal government actors, who have offered no evidence that they have seen or even care about the legal rulings of this district.”
“The disregard for the law shames every hardworking public servant who toils for the benefit of the country and its people.”
And the only comment the government has made is red-hatted ragebait that’s wildly out-of-touch with what the judges are seeing on the ground, saying he Justice Department “is focused on law and order, public safety, and will not tolerate any violence directed toward law enforcement officials working tirelessly to keep Americans safe, despite the best efforts of activist judges who’d rather see violent illegal criminals walk free.”
Because in 2026 judicial due process concerns are synonymous with activist judges.
Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter @Kathryn1 or Mastodon @[email protected].
