In an unusual development on Wednesday, a New York City judge delivered a strong rebuke to an immigration attorney over the subpar quality of their legal representation.

The judge’s three-page ruling quickly dismissed a flawed attempt to secure habeas corpus relief, along with other emergency measures, for three individuals. This case adds to the growing number of similar actions seen in U.S. courts since the summer of 2025.

U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil, who took the bench under President Donald Trump’s first administration, noted that on the same day the petition was filed, the lawyer submitted a letter acknowledging a fundamental factual error in the case.

This case arises amid the Trump administration’s intensified measures to detain certain immigrants indefinitely. This strategy follows ICE’s revised interpretation of its authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Over the last nine months, numerous district court challenges have examined the relationship between two INA statutes that define government detention powers. Many judges have re-evaluated these laws, referencing a 2018 U.S. Supreme Court decision authored by Justice Samuel Alito.

The government contends that ICE is authorized to enforce mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. §1225(b), which pertains to “aliens seeking entry into the United States.”

On the other hand, immigration advocates and the majority of judges ruling in these cases often refer to 8 U.S.C. §1226(a), which applies to “aliens already present in the United States.”

Here, however, the matter did not get nearly that far — but Vyskocil did take note of the deluge in such cases.

In the order, the judge says the case “usurp[ed] the attention and displace[d] the calendar” of the court “as the wave of habeas corpus petitions filed in the immigration context has done for months.”

Aside from the habeas relief, the petitioners asked for mandamus, declaratory, and injunctive relief. The petitioners’ attorney also filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue.

To what extent any other requests were extraneous — or germane to the facts — was not immediately clear. The court merely notes the habeas bid was not at all supported by the facts — because it was not even necessary in the first place.

The judge recites and restates the original petition to explain that “the only basis upon which she seeks a writ of habeas corpus is” the “abrupt increase” of “restraints” on one of the petitioners’ liberty “represented by” the imposition of “an ankle monitor.”

But the petitioner was not placed on an ankle monitor.

“Astonishingly, however, the letter filed by Petitioner’s counsel clarifies that ‘[t]he Petitioner has never been under an ankle monitoring,’” the order reads. “By way of clarification, counsel explains that ‘[t]hat incorrect fact was inadvertently included in the petition due to confusion with other cases in the office involving ankle monitoring.”

The judge was none too pleased with that excuse.

“This explanation is unacceptable,” the order continues. “The Court does appreciate that counsel promptly notified the Court of the error. But, beyond exposing himself to the possibility of sanctions … counsel’s filings may also have exposed his client to criminal liability.”

In the filing, the attorney evidently credited their client with saying: “ICE has now placed me on an ankle monitor.”

Vyskocil then chides the lawyer for their mistakes.

“Petitioners like those represented in this action are human beings, whose interests are not served by cut-and-paste lawyering,” the order goes on.

The court notes that the mistakes were plentiful — chastising the attorney for their efforts, so far, to try to salvage the case as it stands.

From the order, at length:

As counsel surely recognizes, no part of the Petition or TRO Application can be ruled upon—or even responded to—prior to amendment. Across those two submissions, the nonexistent “ankle monitor” is mentioned nearly forty times. Merely “strik[ing]” those references, or “withdraw[ing] the Petitioners’ declaration,” will not suffice.

In essence, the court has rejected all the filings so far — but will give the attorney another chance to refile them starting from scratch.

“Accordingly, the Petition and TRO Application are denied without prejudice to re-filing after amendment,” the order concludes. “Should Petitioners wish to file amended papers, the Government’s response thereto shall be due within one week.”