Why a judge in Kansas is releasing immigrants, including convicted criminals

Summary

• Judge John Lungstrum has ordered release of 23 immigrants since August
• Releases include convicted criminals and registered sex offenders
• Judge cites Supreme Court ruling Zadvydas v. Davis on detention limits
• Trump administration officials criticized for lack of deportation evidence

At least 23 times in the past eight months, a federal judge in Kansas has released immigrants who were being indefinitely detained in violation of the U.S. Constitution after immigration officials failed to deport them within a reasonable time.

The judge has grown increasingly frustrated with President Donald Trump’s administration, raising “repeated complaints” over the lack of information provided to the court in habeas corpus cases. The judge has warned that such outcomes are likely to continue as long as federal officials fail to provide specifics.

In at least some cases, the result has been the release of convicted criminals, including one who was labeled a sexual predator after a child sex crime conviction in another state.

The influx of habeas petitions is likely to continue.

In statements to The Capital-Journal, the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the U.S. Department of Justice indicated the increased caseload is the result of the Trump administration’s “strong border security policies.”

Meanwhile, more immigrants from Kansas and other states could be detained here as a private prison begins accepting detainees and state lawmakers push to allow local jails to indefinitely hold immigrants with ICE detainers.

Immigrants detained indefinitely in Kansas file habeas corpus petitions

Under the U.S. Constitution and federal law, habeas corpus allows a person in the government’s custody to challenge the legality of their confinement. That includes protections against indefinite detention, which is the issue raised in a slew of petitions filed in U.S. District Court in Kansas.

District Judge John Lungstrum has repeatedly ordered the release of immigrants who had been detained for long periods of time without being deported. The orders raise complaints with Trump administration officials at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Department of Justice.

Lungstrum, who sits on the federal bench in Kansas City, was appointed in 1991 by then-President George H.W. Bush. He was the chief judge for the district of Kansas from 2001 to 2007, and he moved to senior status in 2010.

In some cases, the U.S. Attorney’s Office is losing to immigration attorneys. In others, the federal government is losing to immigrants who are representing themselves pro se.

The named respondents in the cases have been multiple high-level officials in the Trump administration as well as wardens of two ICE detention facilities in Kansas. They include then-Homeland Security secretary Kristi Noem, then-attorney general Pam Bondi, acting ICE director Todd Lyons, ICE field office director Sam Olson, ICE ERO Chicago field office director Ricardo Wong, Chase County jail warden Jacob Welsh and Crystal Carter, the warden of the federal prison in Leavenworth.

Federal judge explains Supreme Court decision on immigrant detention

In court orders, Lungstrum has explained the federal code and case law.

“Generally, when an alien is ordered removed, the removal is to occur within a period of 90 days, referred to as the ‘removal period,'” Lungstrum said.

But what happens if the deportation does not happen within 90 days? That question is addressed in a U.S. Supreme Court decision, Zadvydas v. Davis, from 2001.

“In Zadvydas, the Supreme Court noted that an alien must be detained during the 90-day removal period and that the Government may continue to detain an alien after that period or release the alien under supervision,” Lungstrum said. “The Court held, however, that ‘once removal is no longer reasonably foreseeable, continued detention is no longer authorized by the statute.'”

The Supreme Court “established a presumptively-reasonable detention period of six months in which to accomplish removal,” Lungstrum said. After six months, a detainee facing deportation can provide “good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of his removal in the reasonably foreseeable future,” to which the federal government would have to “respond with evidence” to allow continued detention.

In multiple cases, federal government didn’t remove immigrants within 6 months

The problem raised in the habeas cases is twofold.

• First, federal officials have held multiple immigrants in Kansas detention facilities for more than six months without deporting them.
• Second, the government isn’t providing the court with sufficient evidence to show the detainees would actually be removed in the foreseeable future.

A review by The Capital-Journal of U.S. District Court orders in Kansas identified 23 habeas cases between Aug. 14 and April 1 where Lungstrum ordered the government to release a detainee who had not been removed within six months.

There are also other habeas cases during that time where Lungstrum ruled against a detainee — although at least one of those later successfully filed a new petition.

Little information on the cases is public record. The petitions, responses, exhibits and other documents filed by the parties aren’t publicly viewable in the court records system. The limited information available to the public is mostly restricted to what Lungstrum includes in his orders.

Kansas judge is releasing immigrants and raising ‘repeated complaints’

A common issue among many of the cases is a difficulty finding alternative third countries to accept immigrants who cannot be sent back to their home country. In at least some cases, the challenge has been obtaining travel documents.

Lungstrum has grown increasingly frustrated with the Trump administration over a lack of detailed information about efforts to deport detainees and specific analysis on why they are likely to succeed after months of failure.

“In recent cases, this Court has decried the absence of such analysis or explanation despite the Court’s repeated complaints to that effect,” Lungstrum wrote in a footnote of a March 13 order releasing Johan Ngun Ling.

In a similar footnote on a Feb. 20 order to release Kaveh Abedi, Lungstrum said the lack of detail “is especially disheartening in light of the Court’s repeated complaints to that effect.”

Abedi is a citizen of Iran who had been on ordered removed to a country other than Iran following a drug conviction in California in 2002. He had been on supervised release for about 23 years until officials took him back into custody in June 2025.

Ling is a citizen of Myanmar who was a lawful permanent resident but was ordered removed in July 2025 following criminal convictions in Indiana. State court records show it was a child sex crime, and he is a registered sex offender with an address in Indianapolis.

But Ling can’t be sent back to Myanmar, and Lungstrum chastised immigration officials for an apparent lack of effort over eight months to find a different country and failing to provide the court with specific analysis.

In another case, Mohamed Ibrahim Hassan was ordered released on Jan. 5. Hassan was a lawful permanent resident, but is a citizen of Somalia who was born in Kenya. Immigration officials initiated removal proceedings in 2022 based on a conviction for receiving stolen property.

But Hassan can’t be sent to Somalia, and officials failed to find a third country. Lungstrum complained of a lack of detail beyond “a vague description” and said there didn’t appear to be “any concrete steps in the last six months to find a removal destination.”

The judge bemoaned “the use of similar boilerplate language in the Government’s submissions,” likening it to another case.

In that case, Fernando Gonzalez Gutierrez entered the U.S. in 2023 was was subsequently convicted of a federal drug offense. But Gutierrez can’t be sent back to Mexico, and officials failed to find a different country and didn’t provide the judge with details on their efforts over eight months. Lungstrum ordered his release on Dec. 2.

Judge has at times denied habeas petitions

Lungstrum hasn’t ordered release in every case after the 90-day and six-month periods. He denied habeas petitions by Gerardo Reyna-Salgado, a Mexican convicted of domestic battery, but later granted a third one after continued failure by immigration officials to deport him.

Using a rare exclamation point in his writing, Lungstrum’s Dec. 12 order noted “immigration officials have not even made the required 90-day custody determination after a review that began last April — over eight months ago! — and that failure belies any suggestion that officials have acted with diligence in petitioner’s case.”

Another sex offender, Ayyub Haytham Jamil Hanna, was ordered released on Nov. 17 when authorities failed to find a country to take him after more than nine months.

Lungstrum’s order and Illinois criminal records show Hanna is a citizen of Iraq who was born in 1997, entered the U.S. in 2003 and eventually became a lawful permanent resident. In 2017 he was convicted of sexual assault in Illinois. The Illinois State Police offender registry called Hanna a child sex offender and a “sexual predator” with an address in a Chicago suburb.

Illinois Department of Corrections records show Hanna was paroled on Dec. 6, 2024, and Lungstrum said immigration officials later took Hanna into custody. An immigration judge in 2020 had ordered Hanna’s removal, but he cannot be sent to Iraq.

In some cases where a detainee could not be sent to their home country, immigration officials made initial inquiries to three other countries but reported little further work. The pattern was highlighted in an Oct. 7 order releasing Irakli Zhuzhiashvili, a citizen of the country of Georgia.

Lungstrum said statements by immigration officials “suggests that officials will make requests to three alternative countries, seemingly to satisfy some quota … and that such requests are generally futile.”

Lungstrum has indicated that ICE may not be providing attorneys at the U.S. Attorney’s Office with the information he wants.

In a footnote on a Feb. 27 order releasing Arish Rustami, Lungstrum said federal officials had told the court “they understand the Court’s request for greater detail on removal efforts … but that they simply ‘do not have additional detail to provide the Court at this time.'”

Rustami is an Iranian citizen who was admitted into the U.S. in 2004 but was convicted in 2010 in Missouri of possessing child pornography.

Lungstrum warned that continued failure to provide such detail will lead to similar results.

“The Court appreciates that counsel may not receive additional information from Government officials, but presumably those officials know why particular steps have or have not been taken, and they may have an understanding as to why removal efforts have not been successful,” he said. “So long as those officials fail to provide that information to the Court and fail to make particularized arguments why a specific petitioner’s removal is likely to be accomplished in the reasonably-foreseeable future, this Court will continue to conclude that respondents have not successfully rebutted that petitioner’s initial showing under the Zadvydas framework.”

What federal officials say of habeas cases in Kansas

U.S. Attorney Ryan Kriegshauser leads the office that has defended the habeas petitions.

“Yes, Kansans and Americans should be concerned that criminal illegal aliens are in the country and should rest assured that great efforts are being made to remove them from the United States,” he said in a statement. “Those efforts have resulted in additional removal proceedings, and in turn, additional habeas petitions filed by aliens that are in removal proceedings and are currently awaiting removal.”

The Justice Department likewise indicated the influx of habeas petitions is a result of Trump’s tougher immigration enforcement.

“After four years of de facto amnesty under the previous administration, the Trump Administration is complying with court orders and fully enforcing federal immigration law,” the DOJ said in a statement. “If rogue judges followed the law in adjudicating cases and respected the Government’s obligation to properly prepare cases, there wouldn’t be an ‘overwhelming’ habeas caseload or concern over DHS following orders. The level of illegal aliens currently detained is a direct result of this Administration’s strong border security policies to keep the American people safe.”

Kriegshauser said his office is “proactively taking steps to manage the increased caseload by increasing inter-agency communication, addressing internal staffing challenges, reallocating workloads, and strategically managing the habeas litigation based on available resources.”

While some detainees have been released, they may still be monitored.

“The USAO remains committed to protecting Kansans and Americans from criminal illegal aliens who are asking to be released into our communities by seeking release on conditions and supervision while the removal process moves forward,” Kriegshauser said.

While they acknowledged The Capital-Journal’s inquiry, public affairs for DHS and ICE didn’t respond with comment by an April 3 deadline.

Why Kansas could see more habeas corpus cases in the future

The courts could be handling even more habeas cases in the future as more immigrants from Kansas and elsewhere are detained in the state.

Private prison company CoreCivic is reopening its detention center in Leavenworth after it was delayed by legal disputes. The Midwest Regional Reception Center can hold more than 1,000 detainees for ICE.

Additionally, Kansas lawmakers in late March passed House Bill 2372, which would allow county sheriffs to indefinitely jail anyone with an ICE detainer. Legislators stripped a provision that would have limited such immigration holds without criminal charges at 48 hours.

The bill would also require the attorney general’s office to provide law enforcement with legal representation in habeas corpus cases. The attorney general’s office indicated in a fiscal note that it anticipates the legislation would lead to more federal civil rights and habeas cases, requiring another staff attorney position at the office.

Even if Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly vetoes it, the Republican supermajorities in the Legislature had veto-proof margins when passing the bill. Attorney General Kris Kobach, the Kansas Sheriff’s Association and other law enforcement groups testified in support of the legislation while civil rights and immigrant advocacy groups opposed it.