Federal judges back ICE detainees' bond hearing demands - Springfield Daily Citizen

With increasing regularity, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainees in the Greene County Jail are demanding bond hearings and suing Greene County Sheriff Jim Arnott, ICE, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and Attorney General Pam Bondi.

Federal judges M. Douglas Harpool and Brian C. Wimes have sided with plaintiffs, ordering Arnott and federal officials to either set a bond hearing in seven to 10 days or release the detainees. Federal judges are making similar rulings across the nation.

The granting of a bond hearing does not necessarily stop deportation. Instead, it allows the detainee to post a bond and get out of jail as the matter is resolved.

Many of the detainees filing these federal habeas petitions are from across the nation, but their pleadings are landing in federal court in Springfield because the jail where they are incarcerated is in Greene County.

A habeas petition is a legal action that allows a detained person to challenge in court their imprisonment.

A quick review of federal online filings show that Arnott was named as a defendant or a respondent four times in 2022; four times in 2023; six times in 2024; 26 times in 2025; and 18 times thus far in 2026.

Jail signed contract with ICE in October 2024

The jail has a contract with the federal government to house up to 300 ICE detainees a day. Greene County receives about $100 a day in reimbursement for each ICE detainee. That $100 does not include the cost of any medications the ICE detainees receive in the jail.

The contract was signed in October of 2024 and has resulted in hundreds of ICE detainees landing in the Greene County Jail as the Trump administration ramped up efforts to arrest and deport people deemed to be in the United States without proper documentation. The administration assured Americans it would go after “the worst of the worst.”

I reached out to the sheriff’s office and asked if Greene County was incurring any of the expense involved in these legal proceedings or if the cost is being borne by the federal government. I did not hear back by deadline.

Rekha Sharma-Crawford, an immigration attorney in Kansas City, told the Daily Citizen late last year the sheriff must be named in these lawsuits since the inmates are in Greene County, but the lawsuits are really focused on the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security.

Judge says he’s had 26 of these cases

In rulings filed in recent weeks that I’ve looked at, Harpool and Wimes have concluded that those detainees who have been living in the country for years, if not decades, should be treated differently than those detained at the border.

They’ve concluded that detainees who have lived here for years and do not have a criminal record are entitled to a bond hearing.

I asked Harpool if this new caseload was difficult to handle in terms of resources at the federal courthouse. He responded via e-mail.

“When we order a bond hearing it is before an immigration judge. Those hearings typically are occurring before immigration judges in Kansas City. They do not occur in our courthouse or by our courts judges. I have one case where I ruled the bond hearing provided failed to comply with legal requirements but that was atypical. Normally the decision to issue bond is solely up to immigration judges. I have heard they are backed up.”

I should note that immigration judges are not part of the federal judiciary. They are part of the Department of Justice and they are hired and fired by Attorney General Bondi.

“Several of our (federal district) judges have these habeas cases and have ordered bond hearings,” Harpool said. “Last count I had 26 of these cases. Habeas cases must be filed in the district where the inmate is found.

“In some of these cases I have simply ordered release based on previously approved parole. ICE had detained them even though they were on approved parole. On all others, I ruled they were entitled to bond hearings.

“Previous administrations from both parties had provided bond hearings in these situations but this administration took the opposite position. These cases are being litigated all over the country. Virtually all district judges have ruled as I have but several Circuit Courts including the 8th (which includes the Springfield area) have expedited cases to resolve the legal issue.”

A detainee from China and one from Russia; neither have a criminal record

In two separate cases I reviewed, Harpool ruled in favor of plaintiffs Keqiang Fu of China and Tatiana Lozhkina of Russia.

Here’s a brief look at their histories, according to court documents:

Fu “entered the United States three years ago. Petitioner has no criminal record. On January 15, 2026, he was taken into custody by ICE/ERO (Enforcement and Removal Operations) officials during his ICE check-in. He had previously presented himself to a number of check-ins throughout the years he had been present in the United States. He has been held without a bond hearing.”

Harpool ordered on Feb. 17 that Fu be released from custody. He was not on the online jail roster when I checked Feb. 19.

Lozhkina “is a citizen of Russia who entered the U.S. to seek protection from persecution and torture. She arrived at Chicago O’Hare Airport on June 25, 2016, with her three children.

“Upon arrival she expressed a well-founded fear of persecution based on death threats and attacks tied to her spouse’s refusal to participate in corruption related to their family sawmill business (in Russia).

“Petitioner suffered persecution including death threats and attacks after her husband refused to pay extortion demands related to their business.

“… Petitioner has significant U.S. equities, including nearly ten years of continuous residence, the presence of all of her children and their families, including a U.S. born-grandchild, and strong community ties. Petitioner has never been arrested or charged with any crime.

“On Nov. 20, 2025, petitioner and her spouse drove to a local Home Depot to shop for business supplies. They were immediately surrounded by multiple vehicles and blocked on all sides. An ICE agent called their names, approached them, and arrested them on the alleged basis of being ‘illegal.’ This occurred despite petitioner’s long-term residence in the united States and her pending asylum application before an immigration court.”

Harpool ruled that Lozhkina either have a bond hearing within 10 days of the date of his ruling, which was Jan. 14, or be released.

A bond hearing was held Jan. 23; bond was set at $20,000 by an immigration judge; Harpool reviewed the bond and determined that ICE’s expressed concerns that Lozhkina was a flight risk were not supported by any evidence presented. He ordered that either a new bond hearing be held or she be released. She was released.

His criminal record: a brake light out

Judge Wimes ruled in favor of plaintiffs Randu Escoto and Jose Bravo-Vargas, 42.

According to court documents:

Escoto “in 2013 entered the United States without inspection or authorization. In November 2020, DHS arrested Escoto, and placed him on removal proceedings. Thereafter, Escoto was released on a $5,000 bond.

“… In August 2025, DHS again detained Escoto as ‘inadmissible.’ Escoto is and has been in ICE custody, and has not been provided a bond hearing.”

Court records do not indicate Escoto had a bond hearing. He apparently was released. I checked the jail roster Feb. 19 and he was not listed.

Both judges had ordered that detainees not be moved out of the court’s jurisdiction while the matter of bond was being determined.

Regarding Bravo-Vargas, “In 2006, Bravo-Vargas entered the United States without inspection or authorization and has not departed the country since his arrival. He has maintained employment, has four children who are United States citizens and one who is a lawful permanent resident by marriage, and has no criminal history. His only law enforcement contact prior to his arrival by ICE was a citation for a failed brake light, for which he incurred a small fine that he promptly paid.”

Wimes made his ruling Feb. 17. He ordered that either Bravo-Vargas have a bond hearing within seven calendar days or be released.

As of Feb. 21, Bravo-Vargas no longer appeared on the Greene County Jail’s online roster.

This is Pokin Around column No. 340.