JUDGE: 'A PERFIDIOUS LUST FOR UNBRIDLED POWER'

Judge’s scathing order could reshape detention fights as dad, 5-year-old return

Before the Court is the petition of asylum seeker Adrian Conejo Arias and his five-year-old son for protection of the Great Writ of habeas corpus. They seek nothing more than some modicum of due process and the rule of law. The case has its genesis in the ill-conceived and incompetently-implemented government pursuit of daily deportation quotas, apparently even if it requires traumatizing children. 

 

by Yami Virgin and Mike Guerrero 

 

NEWS4SA

Feb 1, 2026

 

 

U.S. District Judge Fred Biery 

 

SAN ANTONIO — Today, 5-year-old Liam Conejo Arias and his father, Adrian Conejo Arias, are back home in Minneapolis after a federal judge ordered their release from immigration detention in Dilley, Texas. Attorneys say the judge’s sharply worded opinion could have implications beyond this one case.

U.S. District Judge Fred Biery in San Antonio granted the family’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a legal action that requires the government to bring a detained person before a judge and justify why they are being held. The ruling criticized how the government handled its detention and invoked both the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

In his opinion, Biery wrote that the father and son “seek nothing more than some modicum of due process and the rule of law.” He said the Constitution “trumps this administration’s detention” of the two. He also wrote that the government’s actions reflected a “perfidious lust for unbridled power” and the “imposition of cruelty in its quest,” adding, “the rule of law be damned.”

The judge wrote that the family was seeking asylum and had no deportation order, but were detained anyway. He criticized what he described as the government’s “ill-conceived and incompetently implemented” pursuit of daily deportation quotas, “apparently even if it requires traumatizing children.”

The opinion includes historical and civic references. Biery wrote that the government appeared to ignore the Declaration of Independence, noting that Thomas Jefferson listed grievances against an authoritarian king, including sending “swarms of officers to harass our people,” “excited domestic insurrection,” and “quartering large bodies of armed troops among us.” Biery wrote that “we the people are hearing echoes of that history.”

Biery also cited the Fourth Amendment, which protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures and requires warrants to be supported by probable cause and issued by an independent judicial officer. He wrote that administrative warrants issued within the executive branch “do not pass probable cause muster,” describing it as “the fox guarding the henhouse.” He further wrote, “The Constitution requires an independent judicial officer.”

San Antonio attorney Tim Maloney said the ruling is significant in part because of who wrote it.

“When you have an opinion from a judge with such gravitas, it changes the game plan,” Maloney said. “He issued a writ of habeas corpus and right now, a five-year-old kid is heading home, and that’s a big deal.”

Maloney explained that habeas corpus is a fundamental legal protection, sometimes called the “Great Writ,” that protects people from unlawful detention by requiring the government to prove in court that it has legal authority to hold someone.

“Habeas corpus is the only remedy that, when you're picked up, it demands that you are taken before a judge and given the right to determine whether or not you are lawfully detained,” he said.

Adam Loewy, an Austin attorney, said the case should matter even to people who support stricter border enforcement.

“We are a nation of laws,” Loewy said. “When people come here and apply for asylum, there is a whole process they must go through.”

Loewy said he supports border control but believes this case shows how enforcement can clash with due process.

“To seize a five-year-old boy who is in the process of applying for asylum, I think, is nuts,” he said.

Maloney cautioned that the decision does not automatically mean others in ICE custody will be released.

“This was extraordinary,” he said, adding that many others remain detained. “That’s the true tragedy behind it.”