"ICE Expected the Court to Accept … [Its] Basis for Detaining Petitioner, but Shield Its Rationale from the Court"
The court has criticized ICE for redacting key information in a case involving the detention of a petitioner. Judge Sanket Bulsara emphasized that such practices violate legal standards and warned of potential sanctions against ICE. The court ultimately denied ICE's motion to seal the unredacted document, stating that privileges cannot be used to shield information from scrutiny.
- ▪ICE filed a redacted document regarding the detention of a petitioner, which the court found to violate its practices.
- ▪Judge Bulsara warned ICE that further obfuscation could lead to sanctions against the agency.
- ▪The court denied ICE's motion to seal the unredacted document, asserting that privileges cannot be used to avoid scrutiny.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
Free Speech "ICE Expected the Court to Accept … [Its] Basis for Detaining Petitioner, but Shield Its Rationale from the Court" "Such practices are repugnant to the rule of law, and ICE is warned that further obfuscation and misuse of sealing and redaction before the undersigned will lead to sanctions against the agency." Eugene Volokh | 6.1.2026 1:09 PM From Judge Sanket Bulsara (E.D.N.Y.) Wednesday in Nazarenko v. Genalo: On May 25, 2026, Respondents filed an answer to the [habeas] petition in this case. That response contained as an exhibit an INA § 236(a) Initial Custody Determination ("INA § 236(a)"). The document was redacted—including the date and time of the arrest of Petitioner and the "Discussion" outlining the basis for a finding of dangerousness.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at Reason.com.