School Pickup Turned Federal Nightmare

A five-year-old boy detained with his father at an ICE checkpoint became the center of a constitutional firestorm that exposed deep fractures between executive enforcement power and judicial oversight in American immigration law.

Story Snapshot

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche disputed that Liam Conejo Ramos and his father Adrian have a valid asylum claim, contradicting their lawyers’ assertions
A federal judge ordered their release from Texas detention after criticizing ICE’s use of administrative warrants as unconstitutional
The father was detained January 20 while picking up his son from a Minneapolis school, sparking two weeks of legal and political intervention
The Trump administration plans to appeal the judge’s ruling, ensuring continued litigation over detention authority and warrant procedures

When School Pickup Became a Federal Case

Adrian Alexander Conejo Arias arrived at his son’s Minneapolis school on January 20, 2026, expecting a routine pickup. Instead, ICE agents detained him and took five-year-old Liam Conejo Ramos into custody. The family was transported to a detention facility in Dilley, Texas, more than a thousand miles from their Minnesota home. School officials later reported that agents refused to release the child to another adult who requested to care for him, raising immediate questions about the operation’s execution and priorities.

The Asylum Dispute at the Heart of the Case

Deputy AG Todd Blanche appeared on ABC’s “This Week” on February 2 to challenge the family’s legal standing. He stated there exists “a very meaningful dispute about whether they had properly applied for asylum,” emphasizing the administration’s view that unauthorized entry constitutes criminal activity justifying detention. The family’s attorneys countered that their asylum case is actively being processed, creating a factual deadlock between government officials and legal representatives. This contradiction reveals systemic confusion about asylum procedures across immigration agencies.

A Judge Rejects Executive Self-Authorization

U.S. District Judge Fred Biery issued a scathing rebuke of the administration’s detention methods. His order stated that “administrative warrants issued by the executive branch to itself do not pass probable cause muster. That is called the fox guarding the henhouse. The Constitution requires an independent judicial officer.” The judge ordered the family’s release within three days, directly challenging the legality of ICE’s warrant procedures. This constitutional criticism strikes at the foundation of current immigration enforcement practices, suggesting thousands of similar detentions may lack proper judicial authorization.

Congressional Intervention and Political Fallout

Representative Joaquin Castro of Texas personally escorted the family from the Dilley detention center back to Minnesota on February 1. He posted to social media, telling young Liam, “Don’t let anyone tell you this isn’t your home. America became the most powerful, prosperous nation on earth because of immigrants not in spite of them.” Representative Ilhan Omar of Minnesota also supported the family’s release. This congressional involvement transformed a routine enforcement action into a national political flashpoint, demonstrating how individual cases can catalyze broader policy debates.

The Constitutional Questions That Remain Unresolved

The administration announced plans to appeal Judge Biery’s decision, ensuring this case will continue through the federal court system. At stake is whether the executive branch can issue its own warrants for immigration arrests without independent judicial review. The dispute also highlights inconsistent asylum processing procedures across multiple agencies, including USCIS and the Executive Office for Immigration Review. These systemic issues suggest the Conejo Ramos case represents a symptom of deeper structural problems rather than an isolated incident.

What This Means for Immigration Enforcement

The detention and release of this family exposes fundamental tensions in American immigration law. The administration maintains that unauthorized presence justifies detention pending legal proceedings, while judges and legal advocates argue constitutional protections require independent warrant authorization and proper asylum processing procedures. The case also demonstrates how enforcement operations targeting families with young children generate intense public scrutiny and political opposition. Whether administrative warrants survive judicial review will determine the scope of executive enforcement authority for years to come, affecting countless families in similar circumstances.