Federal judge Fred Biery ordered the release of five-year-old Liam Conejo Ramos and his father, Adrian Conejo Arias from ICE custody in Dilley, Texas, after a highly publicized dispute over how the child came into federal care. The decision followed a viral episode that prompted sharp public reaction and a courtroom opinion heavy on rhetoric about power, cruelty, and the rule of law.
A Clinton-appointed judge signed the order directing the release of the boy and his father from the South Texas Family Residential Center outside San Antonio. The case drew national attention and reopened debates over immigration enforcement and family detention. Biery’s opinion mixes legal findings with pointed commentary about the government’s conduct and posture.
Ramos’ story inspired claims by left-leaning commentators that ICE agents had used the child as “bait” to lure his father into an arrest and that the child had been “kidnapped” into a detention center. Court records and agency statements tell a different sequence: Arias fled officers on foot, left the child in a vehicle, and DHS attempted multiple times to hand the boy to his mother, who declined custody. After those attempts failed, Arias accepted custody while his immigration case proceeded, and the family remained together at the STFRC pending removal proceedings.
Biery did not limit himself to dry legal analysis, and his opinion includes sharp language aimed at the administration’s handling of immigration enforcement. He wrote, “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.” That passage has been widely cited as evidence the ruling was as political as it was judicial.
In the opinion the judge also added, “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.” He further wrote, “Apparent also is the government’s ignorance of an American historical document called the Declaration of Independence.”
Biery went on to describe the White House objective to reach 3,000 deportations a day as a “quota,” and he labeled the Trump administration as “incompetent.” Those lines have been replayed in media coverage and used by critics to argue the judgment was a rebuke of policy rather than a narrow remedy for the family’s circumstances. Supporters of stronger enforcement say the judge overstepped and let rhetoric obscure enforcement realities.
The opinion contains at least one noticeable administrative error: Biery incorrectly marked the date of the decision as Feb. 31, a date that does not exist. That oddity has been noted by observers and critics who argue it undercuts the seriousness of the opinion. Still, the substance of the order remains the focus for lawyers, advocates, and immigration officials.
On the day the ruling appeared, Biery’s LinkedIn activity showed him liking posts that said “millions” were protesting policies of President Donald Trump, and that detail has been cited in coverage as evidence of public-facing sympathies. Regardless of the social media notes, the court’s order requires the father and son to be removed from federal custody not later than Feb. 3. That deadline sets an immediate practical result while leaving broader legal questions unresolved.
Editor’s Note: Unelected federal judges are hijacking President Trump’s agenda and insulting the will of the people.
