Federal Litigators Help Area Attorneys With Deportation Cases

A person walks in front of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, which hears habeas petitions filed in Wisconsin. (Jonathan Aguilar / Milwaukee Neighborhood News Service / CatchLight Local)

A loosely formed coalition of about 60 federal litigators are working with immigration attorneys in Wisconsin who represent clients being detained and facing deportation.

Gabriela Parra, an immigration attorney and partner at Layde & Parra S.C. in Milwaukee, said immigration policies are constantly changing, which adds new challenges.

Many cases now involve both immigration proceedings and federal civil rights issues, she said.

“If you haven’t done this, it’s a learning curve,” Parra said.

Federal litigators and immigration attorneys are working together to help meet this demand in Wisconsin.

Surge in overall need

The need for legal representation has grown as immigration enforcement has expanded.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement held an average of 69,600 people per day in detention in December 2025 – a 78% increase compared with the year before, according to an analysis by the Vera Institute of Justice, a national nonprofit working on issues related to mass incarceration and immigration.

But more than half the people in the immigration court system are fighting the government alone, according to immigration court data analyzed by Vera.

“There is a due process crisis right now happening in our immigration system,” said Elizabeth Kenney, associate director of Vera’s Advancing Universal Representation Initiative.

While people have the right to obtain an immigration attorney, the government does not have to provide one, said Timothy Muth, staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin.

Kenney said not having legal representation has major consequences.

People who have attorneys are up to 10 and a half times more likely to get successful outcomes, Kenney said.

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement field office at 310 E. Knapp St. (NNS file photo by Jonathan Aguilar / Milwaukee Neighborhood News Service / CatchLight Local)

More complex cases

Parra said policy changes have added a federal civil rights dimension to many cases – changes that include how the Board of Immigration Appeals has interpreted immigration law.

The board sets binding rules for immigration judges and has authority over appeals in immigration cases.

Parra said there have been more than 80 decisions by the board since January 2025 that have affected immigration policy.

One Board of Immigration Appeals decision, known as Yajure Hurtado, requires immigration judges to treat many as subject to mandatory detention. The decision has significantly limited people’s access to bonds.

“Now you have individuals in detention unless you can file a habeas petition in federal court,” Parra said.

A habeas petition is used to argue that a person’s detention is unlawful.

Habeas petitions vary widely depending on a person’s situation, said Elisabeth Lambert, a federal civil rights attorney working with the network.

Some involve people who have lived in the United States for years and seek release on bond while their cases proceed. Others involve people who entered through legal processes but are later detained and denied bond.

There also are other barriers that make it harder for people to defend themselves, requiring different support in federal court.

For example, Lambert said, immigrants facing deportation don’t have a right to discovery. This means that the only way to get the records is through a specific type of federal records request.

A right of discovery allows a defendant to access information that could be used against them from a prosecutor ahead of trial.

Lambert said records can face various delays and other barriers and may arrive after the deportation proceeding has already happened.

Why federal court is different

Lambert said the two court systems – immigration court and federal court – operate very differently.

Each of these legal spaces has its own sets of rules, norms and procedures, she said.

“It’s just a lot to learn very quickly in a very high-stakes situation,” Lambert said.

It works the other way, too.

“I couldn’t go into immigration court,” she said. “I don’t have the knowledge or the experience.”

In one case Lambert and Parra worked on together, a judge issued a restraining order barring ICE from moving ahead with a client’s removal proceeding until the Freedom of Information Act issue was resolved, she said.

Lambert anticipates similar litigation in the future.

“We think that this is going to be a pretty common issue – of the government withholding people’s immigration records as part of this effort to stack the deportation process against people who are seeking immigration relief.”

Jonathan Aguilar is a visual journalist at Milwaukee Neighborhood News Service who is supported through a partnership between CatchLight Local and Report for America.

This article first appeared on Milwaukee Neighborhood News Service and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.