Judge Orders RELEASE Of Convicted Killers

A federal judge just ordered four convicted criminals with final deportation orders released from ICE custody—an outcome that raises hard questions about who gets protected when immigration enforcement hits the courts.

Quick Take

U.S. District Judge John deGravelles ordered ICE to release four non-citizens with final removal orders and serious criminal convictions from a high-security unit at Louisiana’s Angola prison.
DHS condemned the ruling as a public-safety risk and said it still intends to remove the men from the United States.
The case spotlights a growing national pattern: federal judges increasingly scrutinizing ICE detention practices, especially when detention becomes lengthy or indefinite.
Key uncertainty remains: public reporting has not confirmed where the four men went after release or whether ICE has re-detained them under new authority.

What the Judge Ordered in Louisiana—and Who Was Released

U.S. District Judge John deGravelles of the Middle District of Louisiana ordered the release of four non-citizens from ICE custody on February 6, 2026, after they challenged their detention at the Louisiana State Penitentiary, known as Angola. Reporting describes the men as having final deportation orders and serious criminal convictions, including homicide and sexual exploitation of a minor. The judge’s ruling focused on the legality of continued detention after removal orders.

The individuals identified in coverage include Ibrahim Ali Mohammed, an Ethiopian national with a conviction for sexual exploitation of a minor and a deportation order dated September 5, 2024. Also listed were Cuban nationals Luis Gaston-Sanchez and Ricardo Blanco Chomat, described as having multiple convictions including homicide, and Francisco Rodriguez-Romero, described as convicted of homicide and a weapons offense, with a deportation order dated May 30, 1995. The deportation orders for the Cuban men date back to 2001 and 2002.

DHS Response: Public Safety vs. Judicial Limits on Detention

Department of Homeland Security officials sharply criticized the court-ordered releases, arguing the decision creates avoidable risks for Americans. DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin called the ruling “inexcusably reckless” and said the department still intends to remove the men. That posture reflects a central tension in immigration enforcement: ICE is tasked with carrying out removals, but judges can order release if detention becomes unlawful under federal statutes and constitutional due-process standards.

The reporting does not show any confirmed re-arrests or removals of the four men in the immediate aftermath of the February 6 order. It also notes that Fox News sought comment from the court without receiving a response. Without additional public filings or subsequent law-enforcement announcements, the post-release status of the four individuals is uncertain. For the public, that lack of transparency is part of what makes these court-versus-enforcement clashes so politically combustible.

Why Angola’s “Camp 57” Became a Flashpoint

The detention site itself matters. In 2025, DHS partnered with Louisiana to expand immigration detention at a unit at Angola sometimes referenced as Camp 57, a move aligned with the Trump administration’s priority of removing criminal non-citizens. The Louisiana facility is better known as a state prison with a harsh reputation, and its repurposing for immigration detention drew attention from both sides—supporters emphasizing security and critics emphasizing conditions and length of detention.

In this case, the judge’s decision was reported as turning on the problem of “indefinite detention,” a phrase that has repeatedly surfaced in immigration habeas litigation. When the government cannot promptly execute removal—because of diplomatic barriers, litigation, or other logistical limits—detention can stretch on, and courts are often asked to decide when continued custody becomes unlawful. Those decisions are highly consequential because they can force releases even when underlying criminal histories are severe.

A National Pattern: Courts Pushing Back on ICE Detention Practices

The Louisiana releases fit into a wider national wave of detention challenges. Other cases have involved allegations of warrantless arrests conflicting with consent decrees and claims that due process was not met in prolonged detention. In the Pacific Northwest, reporting described more than 100 rulings in 2025 granting releases tied to due-process violations, many involving non-criminal detainees. Separate litigation, including Castañon Nava v. DHS, has also drawn appellate scrutiny and required more individualized assessments.

Politico has reported that judges in multiple jurisdictions have grown frustrated with what they view as ICE noncompliance or “hair-splitting” around release orders, prompting courts to add detailed requirements such as returning belongings and avoiding unsafe release conditions. That broader dynamic helps explain why the Angola decision is not an isolated headline. It is one more example of enforcement priorities colliding with courtroom standards that demand clear legal authority and procedural fairness.

What Conservatives Should Watch Next: Removal Authority and Public Accountability

For voters focused on law, order, and border integrity, the immediate question is practical: can the executive branch still remove people with final deportation orders when courts order release from custody? DHS insists the answer is yes, but the removal process often depends on detention, cooperation from foreign governments, and available resources. When courts intervene, the system becomes harder to execute quickly—especially in high-profile cases that ignite public concern about preventable victimization.

The constitutional issue is more complicated than slogans. Courts do have a role in preventing unlawful detention, and due process is not optional in America. At the same time, the public has a legitimate expectation that final removal orders—especially for violent offenders—will be carried out effectively. Until more details emerge about the four men’s whereabouts and ICE’s next steps, this case will remain a stress test of whether immigration enforcement can be both lawful and meaningfully protective of public safety.