Murder Convicts Freed—Judge Blamed

A judges gavel poised to strike a sound block

A federal judge just ordered four convicted criminals with final deportation orders released from ICE custody—reviving a familiar “who’s protecting the public?” question for Americans fed up with lax enforcement.

Quick Take

A U.S. district judge in Louisiana ordered ICE to release four non-citizens with final removal orders and serious criminal convictions, including homicide and child sex exploitation.
DHS condemned the ruling as reckless and said it still intends to remove the men from the United States.
The men had been held at an immigration unit at Louisiana State Penitentiary (“Angola”), a detention partnership expanded in 2025.
The case sits inside a broader national pattern of judges scrutinizing ICE detention practices and ordering releases on due-process grounds.

Judge’s Order Frees Detainees with Final Deportation Orders

U.S. District Judge John deGravelles of the Middle District of Louisiana ordered the release of four non-citizens from ICE custody on Feb. 6, 2026, after they challenged what the court viewed as unlawful, indefinite detention. Reporting on the case identified the four as Ibrahim Ali Mohammed, Luis Gaston-Sanchez, Ricardo Blanco Chomat, and Francisco Rodriguez-Romero—each described as having a final deportation order and serious criminal convictions.

Publicly reported details say Mohammed, an Ethiopian national, was convicted of sexual exploitation of a minor and received a deportation order dated Sept. 5, 2024. The other three—listed as Cuban nationals in reporting—had much older deportation orders: Sept. 24, 2001, March 27, 2002, and May 30, 1995. The reported criminal histories include homicide convictions and other violent or weapons-related offenses, which is why the release immediately drew sharp pushback from DHS.

DHS Warns of Public-Safety Risks and Promises Removal

Department of Homeland Security officials criticized the ruling and framed it as a direct public-safety threat, arguing that releasing people convicted of serious crimes creates preventable risk to Americans. DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin, according to reporting, called the decision “inexcusably reckless” and said the department intends to remove the men. That pledge matters because the executive branch, not the courts, is charged with carrying out immigration enforcement—yet court orders can dictate what ICE may do in the short term.

No public reporting in the provided research confirms where the men went after release, whether they were placed on GPS monitoring, or whether ICE has since re-detained or deported them. Fox News reported seeking comment from the court without receiving a response. That lack of follow-up information is a key limitation: the public is left to weigh a strong DHS warning against an incomplete picture of the practical safeguards, if any, imposed after release.

Why Angola’s “Camp 57” Detention Site Became the Flashpoint

The men had been detained at an immigration unit at Louisiana State Penitentiary—widely known as Angola—after DHS partnered with Louisiana in 2025 to expand detention capacity there. The research describes the unit as “Camp 57” and notes its role in the Trump administration’s post-2025 emphasis on detaining and deporting criminal non-citizens. Using a high-security facility aligns with a basic enforcement reality: holding detainees with serious criminal records is different from holding routine immigration violators.

At the same time, the research indicates the legal challenge centered on whether the government can hold people for long periods when removal is not immediately executed, even when there is a final deportation order. That tension—between swift removal and procedural constraints when removal is delayed—has become a recurring point of friction between ICE and federal courts. In practical terms, when deportations stall, detention becomes legally vulnerable, and judges can order release.

A Broader Wave of Court Orders Pushing Back on ICE Detention Practices

This Louisiana order did not occur in isolation. Other cases cited in the research describe judges around the country ordering releases tied to due-process concerns, including litigation over warrantless arrests and compliance with consent decrees. The research also references Washington courts granting over 100 releases in 2025 on due-process grounds, many involving non-criminal detainees, underscoring how varied these cases can be in facts and risk profiles across jurisdictions.

Politico reporting cited in the research also describes judges increasingly imposing detailed release conditions—down to logistical requirements—because courts suspect ICE may “hair-split” or delay compliance. That tug-of-war is bigger than one case: it reflects how immigration enforcement can be shaped by litigation strategy, detention capacity, and court skepticism about executive compliance. For conservative voters who expect laws to be enforced consistently, the end result can feel like policy by courtroom, not by elected leadership.

What Conservatives Should Watch Next: Removal Logistics and Legal Boundaries

The Trump administration’s stated priority of removing criminal illegal aliens runs straight into two hard constraints: the pace of removals and the judiciary’s interpretation of lawful detention during delays. The immediate question is whether DHS can quickly reassert control through deportation, supervision, or re-detention consistent with the court’s order. The longer-term question is whether Congress or the courts clarify the rules around detention timelines for people with final removal orders.

For Americans focused on public safety and constitutional order, the case highlights a recurring contradiction: a system that can issue final deportation orders, document serious criminal convictions, and still struggle to promptly remove offenders—while judges step in to limit detention when the government cannot execute the order. With no confirmed public updates on re-arrest or deportation in the available reporting, the only responsible conclusion is that the policy fight will continue in court, even under a White House committed to enforcement.