{"id":157202,"date":"2026-07-17T12:10:57","date_gmt":"2026-07-17T20:10:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/07\/17\/doj-cites-fake-case-to-keep-man-locked-up-by-ice-judge-declines-to-do-anything-about-it\/"},"modified":"2026-07-17T12:10:57","modified_gmt":"2026-07-17T20:10:57","slug":"doj-cites-fake-case-to-keep-man-locked-up-by-ice-judge-declines-to-do-anything-about-it","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/07\/17\/doj-cites-fake-case-to-keep-man-locked-up-by-ice-judge-declines-to-do-anything-about-it\/","title":{"rendered":"DOJ Cites Fake Case To Keep Man Locked Up By ICE, Judge Declines To Do Anything About It"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Justice Department strolled into federal court to argue that a man nabbed by ICE shouldn\u2019t be allowed to challenge his detention. To make this argument, the U.S. Attorney\u2019s Office cited Taylor v. Hott<\/em>, 724 F. App\u2019x 387, 392 (6th Cir. 2018), a case standing for the proposition that district courts can\u2019t second-guess an immigration judge\u2019s bond determination.<\/p>\n

Taylor v. Hott<\/em> does not exist<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Petitioner Izzeddin Ahmed Abdulghaffar Daghra was nabbed by ICE and thrown into a county jail. An immigration judge set a $35,000 bond, which the Trump administration refused to honor. Instead, the government appealed, which under 8 C.F.R. \u00a7 1003.19(i) triggers an automatic 90-day stay. Daghra argued that allowing the government to override a bond grant by the simple act of disagreeing with it<\/em> violates his due process rights. After the 90 days expired, the government still wasn\u2019t acknowledging the bond order as live and Chief Judge Hala Y. Jarbou issued an order to show cause<\/a> \u201cwhy the Court should not grant Petitioner\u2019s habeas petition due to Respondents\u2019 failure to provide a legal basis for Petitioner\u2019s continued detention.\u201d<\/p>\n

Asked to explain why a man was in jail, the government filed a document. The document did not explain why the man is in jail.<\/p>\n

In the end, the judge dismissed the whole challenge as moot, noting that the stay is lifted and Daghra is free to go as soon as he posts the $35,000. This case was filed on May 1. The judge asked for a status report on June 12. The order to show cause came June 29. It\u2019s a neat trick for the government\u2026 squelch the bond for 90 days with just a say-so, then fight the due process case well beyond the expiration date, and suddenly you\u2019ve held a man for far longer than legally justified and then let the whole thing evaporates as moot! <\/p>\n

A lot harm, no foul.<\/p>\n

By the way, we don\u2019t really know the details of the briefing back-and-forth, because they\u2019re not available for electronic retrieval. As you may or may not know, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c)<\/a> provides a carve-out for immigration-related cases, including habeas petitions, shielding them from standard transparency. Which seems like an acute problem when dealing with an administration that has already proven willing to whisk people off to an El Salvadoran prison camp without checking if they\u2019ve gotten the right person!<\/p>\n

In any event, while trying to hold up the bond, the government cited the aforementioned Taylor v. Hott<\/em>. Chief Judge Jarbou went looking for it \u2014 or, more likely, sent a clerk looking for it \u2014 and found that Page 387 of volume 724 of the Federal Appendix turns out to be sitting inside Atkins v. CGI Technologies & Solutions, Inc.<\/em> \u2014 a commercial arbitration case, which, while an exhilarating topic, has little to say about immigration bonds. In fact, the judge couldn\u2019t find any<\/em> Sixth Circuit opinion with that caption, or any federal case anywhere<\/em> featuring the quoted language.<\/p>\n

\n

The cited case, Taylor v. Hott, is not located at the identified page of the Federal Appendix. Indeed, page 387 is contained within a different opinion \u2014 Atkins v. CGI Techs. & Sols., Inc., 724 F. App\u2019x 383 (6th Cir. 2018) \u2014 which is about commercial arbitration, not immigration bond determinations. In its research, the Court was unable to identify a Sixth Circuit case with the caption Taylor v. Hott, or any federal case containing the quoted language. Thus, it seems this citation was likely produced by generative artificial intelligence (\u201cAI\u201d).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

You think?<\/p>\n

The judge then spent the bulk of a three-page order walking through the emerging caselaw of AI hallucinations and how \u201cimproper and unacceptable\u201d they are and reminded the government that attorneys using AI must scrupulously review its output. For good measure, she invoked the duty of candor to the tribunal.<\/p>\n

And then:<\/p>\n

\n

Although the Court will not presently impose sanctions for this conduct, it goes without saying that the Government must ensure its future filings with this Court do not include non-existent case law.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Counter: it did require saying, which is why the judge committed two pages of saying it.<\/p>\n

So set aside for a second whether the lawyer who filed this was sloppy or overwhelmed, because the honest answer is probably both. But the second one is a policy choice. The Justice Department has hemorrhaged lawyers since the beginning of the Trump administration, leaving the remainder to shoulder the rest of the crushing caseload. A government lawyer already stood in front of a federal judge and asked to be held in contempt<\/a> so she could get 24 hours of sleep, and got fired for the candor. The government is dangling $25,000 signing bonuses<\/a> to deal with the docket because nobody wants the job. <\/p>\n

Along with forcing competent attorneys out the door, the administration has saddled them with a surge of immigration cases by running roughshod across the country arresting, roughing up, and occasionally just killing people in cold blood. Somewhere in that machine, it\u2019s not hard to imagine an attorney with too many habeas cases and not enough hours prompting a chatbot for a citation supporting a bogus proposition that Todd Blanche wishes were true\u2026 and the AI helpfully making one up.<\/p>\n

But\u2026 come on. This is the middle of 2026. We\u2019re three years into the AI halluci-palooza and lawyers can\u2019t claim ignorance about it anymore. The \u201cnobody knew\u201d window closed so long ago that caselaw declaring that the \u201cnobody knew\u201d window has closed is itself a genre. And this isn\u2019t a solo practitioner making a rare foray into the courtroom. It\u2019s the Department of Justice! The federal government should be held to even higher standards<\/em> of professional conduct \u2014 both because it\u2019s an elite organization in the public service and because its mistakes carry life and limb consequences for the other side.<\/p>\n

Jarbou is a Trump appointee plucked directly from the FedSoc pool, but she\u2019s not pulling punches for administration policy. In February, she threw out the DOJ\u2019s lawsuit demanding Michigan\u2019s full voter file<\/a>, personal data and all. She\u2019s more than capable of telling this administration no \u2014 like a whole lot of Republican district judges have<\/a>.<\/p>\n

That said, last year Jarbou dismissed a second-degree murder charge<\/a> against a Michigan State Police detective who killed a man using an unmarked SUV to pin him against a Burger King wall. Jarbou ruled the state cop was a federal officer on a Marshals task force and therefore immune under the Supremacy Clause, finding the state hadn\u2019t produced enough evidence to dispute that he\u2019d done \u201cno more than what was necessary and proper.\u201d Community leaders called it an abomination of justice. <\/p>\n

Which is all to say that a lot of these questions aren\u2019t about partisanship as much as who gets the benefit of the doubt. The federal government\u2019s lawyer cited a made-up case for the purpose of keeping a man in jail. It\u2019s hard to read Jarbou\u2019s scolding as anything but \u201cI know you meant well, but please don\u2019t do this again.\u201d Would she be as patient if law enforcement wasn\u2019t on the other end? Maybe. But the problem is she should show less<\/em> patience with law enforcement because they, unique among lawyers, are playing with live ammunition and need to be held to task.<\/p>\n

And if the last two years show us anything, it\u2019s that a Department of Justice repeatedly caught lying to courts<\/a> and getting senior instruction to tell the courts \u201cfuck you<\/a>\u201d has burned up all of its benefit of the doubt.<\/p>\n

Earlier<\/strong>: DOJ Lawyer Asks To Be Held In Contempt So She Can Sleep<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

The post DOJ Cites Fake Case To Keep Man Locked Up By ICE, Judge Declines To Do Anything About It<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n

The Justice Department strolled into federal court to argue that a man nabbed by ICE shouldn\u2019t be allowed to challenge his detention. To make this argument, the U.S. Attorney\u2019s Office cited Taylor v. Hott<\/em>, 724 F. App\u2019x 387, 392 (6th Cir. 2018), a case standing for the proposition that district courts can\u2019t second-guess an immigration judge\u2019s bond determination.<\/p>\n

Taylor v. Hott<\/em> does not exist<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Petitioner Izzeddin Ahmed Abdulghaffar Daghra was nabbed by ICE and thrown into a county jail. An immigration judge set a $35,000 bond, which the Trump administration refused to honor. Instead, the government appealed, which under 8 C.F.R. \u00a7 1003.19(i) triggers an automatic 90-day stay. Daghra argued that allowing the government to override a bond grant by the simple act of disagreeing with it<\/em> violates his due process rights. After the 90 days expired, the government still wasn\u2019t acknowledging the bond order as live and Chief Judge Hala Y. Jarbou issued an order to show cause<\/a> \u201cwhy the Court should not grant Petitioner\u2019s habeas petition due to Respondents\u2019 failure to provide a legal basis for Petitioner\u2019s continued detention.\u201d<\/p>\n

Asked to explain why a man was in jail, the government filed a document. The document did not explain why the man is in jail.<\/p>\n

In the end, the judge dismissed the whole challenge as moot, noting that the stay is lifted and Daghra is free to go as soon as he posts the $35,000. This case was filed on May 1. The judge asked for a status report on June 12. The order to show cause came June 29. It\u2019s a neat trick for the government\u2026 squelch the bond for 90 days with just a say-so, then fight the due process case well beyond the expiration date, and suddenly you\u2019ve held a man for far longer than legally justified and then let the whole thing evaporates as moot! <\/p>\n

A lot harm, no foul.<\/p>\n

By the way, we don\u2019t really know the details of the briefing back-and-forth, because they\u2019re not available for electronic retrieval. As you may or may not know, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c)<\/a> provides a carve-out for immigration-related cases, including habeas petitions, shielding them from standard transparency. Which seems like an acute problem when dealing with an administration that has already proven willing to whisk people off to an El Salvadoran prison camp without checking if they\u2019ve gotten the right person!<\/p>\n

In any event, while trying to hold up the bond, the government cited the aforementioned Taylor v. Hott<\/em>. Chief Judge Jarbou went looking for it \u2014 or, more likely, sent a clerk looking for it \u2014 and found that Page 387 of volume 724 of the Federal Appendix turns out to be sitting inside Atkins v. CGI Technologies & Solutions, Inc.<\/em> \u2014 a commercial arbitration case, which, while an exhilarating topic, has little to say about immigration bonds. In fact, the judge couldn\u2019t find any<\/em> Sixth Circuit opinion with that caption, or any federal case anywhere<\/em> featuring the quoted language.<\/p>\n

\n

The cited case, Taylor v. Hott, is not located at the identified page of the Federal Appendix. Indeed, page 387 is contained within a different opinion \u2014 Atkins v. CGI Techs. & Sols., Inc., 724 F. App\u2019x 383 (6th Cir. 2018) \u2014 which is about commercial arbitration, not immigration bond determinations. In its research, the Court was unable to identify a Sixth Circuit case with the caption Taylor v. Hott, or any federal case containing the quoted language. Thus, it seems this citation was likely produced by generative artificial intelligence (\u201cAI\u201d).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

You think?<\/p>\n

The judge then spent the bulk of a three-page order walking through the emerging caselaw of AI hallucinations and how \u201cimproper and unacceptable\u201d they are and reminded the government that attorneys using AI must scrupulously review its output. For good measure, she invoked the duty of candor to the tribunal.<\/p>\n

And then:<\/p>\n

\n

Although the Court will not presently impose sanctions for this conduct, it goes without saying that the Government must ensure its future filings with this Court do not include non-existent case law.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Counter: it did require saying, which is why the judge committed two pages of saying it.<\/p>\n

So set aside for a second whether the lawyer who filed this was sloppy or overwhelmed, because the honest answer is probably both. But the second one is a policy choice. The Justice Department has hemorrhaged lawyers since the beginning of the Trump administration, leaving the remainder to shoulder the rest of the crushing caseload. A government lawyer already stood in front of a federal judge and asked to be held in contempt<\/a> so she could get 24 hours of sleep, and got fired for the candor. The government is dangling $25,000 signing bonuses<\/a> to deal with the docket because nobody wants the job. <\/p>\n

Along with forcing competent attorneys out the door, the administration has saddled them with a surge of immigration cases by running roughshod across the country arresting, roughing up, and occasionally just killing people in cold blood. Somewhere in that machine, it\u2019s not hard to imagine an attorney with too many habeas cases and not enough hours prompting a chatbot for a citation supporting a bogus proposition that Todd Blanche wishes were true\u2026 and the AI helpfully making one up.<\/p>\n

But\u2026 come on. This is the middle of 2026. We\u2019re three years into the AI halluci-palooza and lawyers can\u2019t claim ignorance about it anymore. The \u201cnobody knew\u201d window closed so long ago that caselaw declaring that the \u201cnobody knew\u201d window has closed is itself a genre. And this isn\u2019t a solo practitioner making a rare foray into the courtroom. It\u2019s the Department of Justice! The federal government should be held to even higher standards<\/em> of professional conduct \u2014 both because it\u2019s an elite organization in the public service and because its mistakes carry life and limb consequences for the other side.<\/p>\n

Jarbou is a Trump appointee plucked directly from the FedSoc pool, but she\u2019s not pulling punches for administration policy. In February, she threw out the DOJ\u2019s lawsuit demanding Michigan\u2019s full voter file<\/a>, personal data and all. She\u2019s more than capable of telling this administration no \u2014 like a whole lot of Republican district judges have<\/a>.<\/p>\n

That said, last year Jarbou dismissed a second-degree murder charge<\/a> against a Michigan State Police detective who killed a man using an unmarked SUV to pin him against a Burger King wall. Jarbou ruled the state cop was a federal officer on a Marshals task force and therefore immune under the Supremacy Clause, finding the state hadn\u2019t produced enough evidence to dispute that he\u2019d done \u201cno more than what was necessary and proper.\u201d Community leaders called it an abomination of justice. <\/p>\n

Which is all to say that a lot of these questions aren\u2019t about partisanship as much as who gets the benefit of the doubt. The federal government\u2019s lawyer cited a made-up case for the purpose of keeping a man in jail. It\u2019s hard to read Jarbou\u2019s scolding as anything but \u201cI know you meant well, but please don\u2019t do this again.\u201d Would she be as patient if law enforcement wasn\u2019t on the other end? Maybe. But the problem is she should show less<\/em> patience with law enforcement because they, unique among lawyers, are playing with live ammunition and need to be held to task.<\/p>\n

And if the last two years show us anything, it\u2019s that a Department of Justice repeatedly caught lying to courts<\/a> and getting senior instruction to tell the courts \u201cfuck you<\/a>\u201d has burned up all of its benefit of the doubt.<\/p>\n

Earlier<\/strong>: DOJ Lawyer Asks To Be Held In Contempt So She Can Sleep<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Justice Department strolled into federal court to argue that a man nabbed by ICE shouldn\u2019t be allowed to challenge his detention. To make this argument, the U.S. Attorney\u2019s Office cited Taylor v. Hott, 724 F. App\u2019x 387, 392 (6th Cir. 2018), a case standing for the proposition that district courts can\u2019t second-guess an immigration […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":157203,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-157202","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Headshot-300x200-IpFnns.jpg?fit=300%2C200&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/157202","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=157202"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/157202\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/157203"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=157202"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=157202"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=157202"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}