The federal judge ordered the release of a father and his five-year-old son from ICE custody, criticizing enforcement practices and calling out what he saw as cruelty; the case sparked a media firestorm after a photo of the child went viral, and reporting that ignored key facts about the father abandoning the boy. What followed was a sharply worded judicial opinion that blamed immigration policy implementation rather than the agents who cared for the child, and conservative commentators have pushed back hard, questioning the judge’s impartiality and tone.
The episode began when Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in Minneapolis encountered a vehicle carrying Adrian Alexander Conejo Arias and his five-year-old son, Liam Conejos Ramos. After officers approached, Arias fled on foot, leaving the child behind, and agents kept Liam warm and fed while attempting to locate relatives willing to take custody. When family members declined to open the door for law enforcement, agents reunited father and son and transferred them to a family center pending immigration proceedings.
Despite those facts, portions of the media framed the interaction as an “arrest” of a child, accompanied by a viral photo that fueled outrage. That simplistic narrative ignored the reported actions of the father and the care agents provided to the child at the scene. Conservatives argue this selective framing serves political ends, portraying enforcement personnel as cruel while omitting context that points to parental responsibility.
U.S. District Judge Fred Biery, a Bill Clinton appointee, stepped into the controversy by ordering the release of Liam and his father from a Texas detention center and sharply criticizing the government’s deportation practices. In his opinion the judge attacked what he called an enforcement system driven by quotas and described the implementation as traumatizing to children. That language has been seized on by critics who say the judge crossed into political commentary rather than sticking to neutral legal analysis.
In a scathing opinion, which at times read more like a civics lesson, US District Judge Fred Biery admonished “the government’s ignorance of an American historical document called the Declaration of Independence” and quoted Thomas Jefferson’s grievances against “a would-be authoritarian king,” saying today people “are hearing echos of that history.”
Biery’s ruling also included broader moralizing about the exercise of governmental power and the imposition of cruelty, language that conservatives say reads less like a judicial order and more like a political rebuke. Critics point out oddities in the ruling, such as the apparent date error reported by commentators who noted the ruling cited “February 31st,” a date that does not exist. That kind of sloppiness, opponents say, undercuts the authority of the opinion.
Conservative responders highlighted prior statements by the judge in other immigration cases to argue potential bias. One recurring line quoted from Biery reads, “I understand why you want to be here. I was born about a mile north of the Rio Bravo, and won the lottery by being born on this side of it.” Opponents suggest remarks of that nature reveal sympathy rather than the strict neutrality expected from judges deciding immigration cases with significant legal and political implications.
Meanwhile, the on-the-ground facts remain straightforward in one respect: agents did not abandon the child, provided immediate care, and attempted to reunite him with relatives. The father’s flight and the family’s refusal to take custody complicate the narrative of a heartless arrest of a child, yet the judge’s decision focused on structural criticisms of enforcement practice. Conservatives argue that judicial interventions like this one substitute policy judgments for the law, and risk frustrating elected officials’ efforts to restore secure borders and orderly immigration.
The order directed that Liam and his father be released “as soon as practicable,” with a specified latest date for release, reflecting the judge’s view about the proper treatment of families in detention. That remedy pleased advocates who see humane alternatives to strict detention, but alarmed many on the right who worry that such rulings weaken enforcement and encourage future risky border crossings. The tension between compassion and enforcement sits at the heart of the dispute, and the case illustrates how individual incidents can become proxies in a much larger fight over immigration policy.
BREAKING: Texas federal judge Fred Biery (Clinton appointee) has ordered the release of 5-year-old Liam Conejo Ramos & his father from ICE detention in TX. In his decision, he includes a photo of the boy and gets today’s date wrong (Feb 31st doesn’t even exist) while saying that ICE’s administrative warrants “do not pass probable cause muster…that is called the Fox guarding the henhouse…the Constitution requires an independent judicial officer.”
Judge Biery then goes on to write:
“Observing human behavior confirms that for some among us, the perfidious lust for unbridled power and the imposition of cruelty in its quest know no bounds and are bereft of human decency. And the rule of law be damned. Ultimately, Petitioners may, because of the arcane United States immigration system, return to their home country, involuntarily or by self-deportation. But that result should occur through a more orderly and humane policy than currently in place.”
Judge Biery’s LinkedIn page also shows him liking a post today about millions protesting President Trump’s policies.
Observers on the right will likely continue to highlight the apparent factual omissions in early reporting, the judge’s rhetoric, and the potential consequences for enforcement. The case is now a flashpoint between those who prioritize strict adherence to immigration laws and those who insist enforcement must be tempered with humane treatment for families. As legal steps progress, the larger policy battle over how America secures its borders and treats migrants will keep this story in the headlines.
Add comment