SAN ANTONIO, Texas — A federal judge has issued a scathing rebuke of the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement tactics, ordering the immediate release of a Texas State University student who was detained for nearly six months without a bond hearing.
In a decisive 18-page ruling issued late February 2026, Senior U.S. District Judge David Alan Ezra—a Ronald Reagan appointee—found that the government’s continued detention of Jose Alberto Gomez-Gonzalez violated his Fifth Amendment right to procedural due process. The judge took particular aim at the administration’s public narrative, noting the stark contrast between official rhetoric regarding “violent criminals” and the reality of Gomez-Gonzalez’s case.
A “Pretextual” Stop and a Decade of Compliance
The legal saga began on August 14, 2025, during what appeared to be a routine traffic stop in Concho County. Gomez-Gonzalez, 24, was driving to visit his parents before the start of the fall semester when he was pulled over for allegedly traveling “a couple miles” over the speed limit.
Despite presenting a valid Texas driver’s license and proof of insurance, the officer questioned his immigration status. When Gomez-Gonzalez explained he was not a citizen but was lawfully present, the officer contacted Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). He was detained on the spot.
Judge Ezra noted in his ruling that the government did not contest allegations that the stop was “pretextual.” The detention occurred despite the following facts:
Legal Entry: Gomez-Gonzalez entered the U.S. legally at age 12.
Administrative Closure: His removal proceedings were administratively closed by an immigration judge in 2015.
Academic Standing: He was on track to graduate from Texas State University in December 2025 with a government job offer waiting.
Challenging the “Mandatory Detention” Doctrine
The ruling enters a volatile legal landscape where the Trump administration has sought to reclassify thousands of immigrants to subject them to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. §1225(b). This statute is typically reserved for “aliens seeking entry” at the border, who are not entitled to bond hearings.
The government argued that because Gomez-Gonzalez’s original parole had expired years ago, he should be treated as an “applicant for admission” subject to indefinite detention. While the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit recently signaled support for this interpretation on a statutory level, Judge Ezra carved out a critical constitutional exception.
“While it is true as a matter of statutory construction that §1225 permits mandatory detention, the question remains as to what process is due to people detained under that statute,” Ezra wrote. “The mere existence of some protections under a statute does not relieve the Court of its responsibility to ensure that those protections are indeed constitutionally sufficient.”
The court found that denying an individualized bond hearing to a long-term resident with no criminal record created a “high risk of erroneous deprivation” of liberty.
Rebuking the “Worst of the Worst” Narrative
Perhaps the most striking portion of the order appeared in a footnote, where Judge Ezra addressed the administration’s characterization of its enforcement targets.
“The Administration, in widely publicized statements, has said its enforcement efforts target violent criminals and the ‘worst of the worst,'” the judge observed. “Clearly, the Petitioner in this case… is not the violent criminal or danger to the community to which the Administration refers.”
The court noted that the six-month detention had already cost Gomez-Gonzalez his college graduation, his apartment lease, and significant financial resources.
What’s Next for the Case
Judge Ezra’s order mandates that ICE release Gomez-Gonzalez in a “public place” by the first day of next month. Furthermore, the government is prohibited from re-detaining him unless they can prove he poses a flight risk or a danger to the community in a formal hearing.
The Department of Justice has not yet indicated whether it will appeal the ruling. However, the decision adds to a growing “deluge” of district court rulings challenging the administration’s efforts to expand the scope of mandatory detention.
