Buckle up, folks -- over 220 federal judges have slammed the brakes on the Trump administration’s hardline immigration detention policy, signaling a judicial revolt against what many see as an overreach of executive power, as Politico reports.

On July 8, the administration rolled out a directive pushing Immigration and Customs Enforcement to lock up nearly all immigrants in deportation proceedings, a move now facing fierce legal pushback with over 700 cases ruled likely unlawful by judges nationwide.

This policy didn’t just tweak the rules -- it obliterated the chance for detainees to request bond hearings in immigration courts, leaving many long-term U.S. residents, including those seeking asylum, stuck behind bars.

Judicial Pushback Spans Nation

The backlash started small with individual emergency lawsuits popping up everywhere, from conservative strongholds like Missouri and Texas to progressive bastions like California.

These weren’t just random filings -- detainees, often nabbed at work or during routine check-ins, have lived here for years, sometimes decades, and now find themselves caged without a clear path to release.

Fast forward, and the judiciary has spoken: at least 225 judges across 35 states have ruled against the policy, calling it a likely violation of due process, with only eight judges -- six of them Trump appointees -- backing the administration.

Courts Overwhelmed by Litigation Surge

The sheer volume of cases has swamped courts, with judges in states like Michigan and California struggling to keep up as litigation snowballs into an avalanche.

Take California Judge Christina Snyder, who noted on Nov. 21, “The Court is unable to remain current on all new case authority supporting the Court’s conclusion, given the continued onslaught of litigation being generated by [the administration’s] widespread illegal detention practices.”

That’s a polite way of saying the courts are drowning in challenges to a policy that’s sparked more lawsuits than a late-night infomercial scam -- hardly a ringing endorsement of its legality.

Judges from All Backgrounds Unite

These rulings aren’t coming from some monolithic activist bench -- judges appointed by every president from Reagan to Biden, including 23 picked by Trump himself, have rejected this detention mandate.

In Idaho, Judge Lynn Winmill, a Clinton appointee, freed 17 people detained in an October ICE raid, declaring on Nov. 19, “Dozens of district courts across the nation -- with more each day -- have rejected DHS’s expansion of … mandatory detention.”

Translation: when even judges from opposite political spectrums agree this policy stinks, perhaps it’s time for the administration to rethink its game plan instead of doubling down.

Policy Roots and Legal Battles

At its core, the policy hinges on a reinterpretation of federal immigration law, stretching the definition of “seeking admission” to include long-term residents -- a logic one judge likened to calling a theater trespasser someone still begging for a ticket.

While past administrations focused detention on border arrivals, this shift has turned bond hearings into a relic of the pre-July 8 era, leaving federal courts as the last hope for those detained.

Now, with class action lawsuits certified in states like Massachusetts and Colorado, and a nationwide case approved in California, the fight is escalating, even as the Department of Homeland Security pushes for higher courts to vindicate its stance.