A federal judge in West Virginia delivered a blistering rebuke to Immigration and Customs Enforcement after government lawyers claimed an immigrant man had a 2009 marijuana conviction that would have occurred when he was just four years old.
In an order first reported by Politico, U.S. District Judge Irene Berger condemned the government’s submission, noting glaring discrepancies in birthdate, birthplace, parents’ names, and immigration status between the detainee and the criminal record ICE presented to justify his continued detention.
“This sloppiness further validates the Court’s concerns about the procedures utilized by the Respondents depriving people present in the United States of their liberty,” Berger wrote, ordering the man’s release.
The case has quickly become a talking point in West Virginia and beyond, amplifying criticism of the administration’s aggressive deportation push and the mounting strain on federal courts.
Online reaction scathing. Over on Reddit, users didn’t hold back; one commenter said, “Yeah, no. That’s not sloppiness. Sloppiness is getting the name of a 4yo wrong,” to which another immidiately responded, “pure stupidity.”
Others questioned whether the mistake was incompetence or something more deliberate.
“We can’t keep calling it stupidity. They know what they’re doing and they want to do it that way. This isn’t a pile of 10,000 oopsies,” another user wrote.
A third argued that extreme incompetence can begin to resemble intent. “When incompetence is severe enough it can be indistinguishable from malice.”
The online backlash reflects frustration inside courtrooms across the country, where judges have increasingly criticized the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security for failing to comply with orders amid a surge of immigration arrests.
Questions Over “Voluntary” Departure
The West Virginia case also drew attention to claims that the detainee had “voluntarily” signed a departure form written in English, despite the government previously citing his lack of English proficiency as part of its enforcement action.
“Can a four year old even consent to something like that even if it wasn’t an obvious lie?” one commenter asked, underscoring confusion around the record ICE relied upon.
Legal observers note that immigration court procedures differ from criminal courts. Minors do not automatically receive court-appointed guardians ad litem in immigration proceedings, a long-criticized feature of the system that predates the current administration.
“Four year olds literally cannot consent to anything in any legal sense,” one user wrote in response to the controversy.
While the supposed conviction dates back to 2009, the detainee is now an adult. According to court filings cited by Politico, the record used by ICE appeared to belong to someone else entirely.
Judge Berger’s order lands amid a wave of judicial frustration nationwide. In recent weeks, federal judges in multiple states have held government attorneys in civil contempt for failing to comply with court directives in immigration cases.
Some critics argue the crisis reflects years of underfunding and backlog in immigration courts.
“What’s happening today has been set in motion decades ago,” one commenter wrote. “Routine defunding of immigration courts has resulted in the massive backlog that created a ‘crisis’ that now requires draconian action.”
Judge Berger did not speculate about intent. But her language was pointed, and her order unequivocal.
In West Virginia, at least, the court made clear that even in an era of mass enforcement, the basics still matter. A four-year-old cannot have a drug conviction. And a record that plainly belongs to someone else cannot be used to justify taking away a person’s liberty.
