Federal judges have questioned the Trump administration regarding the detention of pregnant and nursing individuals in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody. They are pressing government lawyers for clear answers on whether ICE follows its own policy, which severely limits such detentions.
Politico reported on February 18 that judges have raised concerns in multiple cases after discovering that pregnant detainees and nursing parents faced treatment that seemed to contradict ICE guidelines.
The report highlighted three cases currently in court: a refugee from Myanmar with a five-month-old child at home who ICE suddenly transferred to Texas, a woman from Massachusetts in her third trimester who remained under ICE guard at a hospital after suffering medical problems linked to her detention, and an Indian national who was three months pregnant and whose weight dropped to 90 pounds while held by ICE.
Judges did not only question the detention decisions but also scrutinized the government’s explanations, which the courts found inconsistent and unclear. They wanted to know whether ICE had invoked any exceptions allowing the custody of pregnant or nursing detainees under agency rules.
ICE’s current policy, announced on June 17, 2025, states that the agency “should not detain, arrest, or take into custody for an administrative violation of the immigration laws individuals known to be pregnant, postpartum, or nursing,” except in certain situations. ICE clarified that this policy covers a year of postpartum status and allows detention only when it is “necessary and appropriate,” with additional focus on health and well-being.
The cases mentioned in the Politico report have progressed through federal courts as lawyers sought emergency relief, including orders to block transfers, require medical monitoring, or secure release. Judges questioned why ICE opted for detention or long-distance transfers when the policy instructs officers to avoid custody in most situations involving pregnancy and early parenthood.
In the case of the Myanmar refugee, the report stated that ICE transferred the detainee to Texas despite the family situation, which included an infant still nursing at home. In the Massachusetts case, ICE maintained custody even after the detainee experienced medical distress that required hospital care late in her pregnancy. For the Indian national, the report noted that the detainee’s weight decreased significantly while in custody as her lawyers sought court intervention.
ICE’s policy announcement explains its goal to reduce detention for pregnant, postpartum, and nursing individuals, but it still allows for exceptions related to safety, national security, or other serious factors deemed significant by the agency. The judges’ questions in these recent cases have focused on whether ICE documented and applied those exceptions consistently, and whether the government’s statements in court matched the actions of ICE officers.
The litigation has also highlighted basic procedural issues, such as how quickly detainees can be moved across state lines, how promptly families and lawyers can locate them, and how courts can assess medical risks when the government provides inconsistent accounts of custody decisions.
Politico reported that judges have demanded clearer, more direct answers from the administration regarding its compliance with ICE’s own standards for custody related to pregnancy and nursing.
This is just the latest in a string of controversies with the immigration crackdown, which has hurt Trump politically. There have been numerous reports of detainees being mistreated even on the flights out of the country. In addition immigration officials have ignored several orders from judges in cases of wrongfully deported migrants.
