Judge deems 'cut-and-paste lawyering' unacceptable, lawyer faces sanctions

A judge in New York City sternly criticised an immigration attorney's performance in a unique ruling on Wednesday.

The three-page order swiftly dismisses a failed attempt to secure habeas corpus relief — along with several other urgent relief requests — for three individuals amid an uptick in such cases within the US legal system since summer 2025.

The same day the petition was submitted, the attorney involved "submitted a letter clarifying that the Petition relied on a fundamental factual mistake," stated US District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil, who was appointed by President Donald Trump during his initial term.

This case arises amid intensified efforts by the Trump administration to detain certain immigrants indefinitely due to a restructuring of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)'s understanding of its statutory authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). 

Over the past nine months, in hundreds of district court battles, judges have been examining the interaction and applicability of two separate INA statutes defining the government's detention power. 

Many judges have rephrased these statutes using phrasing from a 2018 US Supreme Court decision authored by Justice Samuel Alito.

In essence, the government asserts that ICE possesses the power to place immigrants in mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. §1225(b), which addresses "aliens seeking entry into the United States."

On the other hand, immigrant advocates — along with most judges who have ruled on these cases — have relied on 8 U.S.C. §1226(a), pertaining to "aliens already present in the United States."

This situation did not advance that far, but Vyskocil acknowledged the influx of such cases.

In her order, the judge points out that the case "diverted the attention and pushed aside the schedule" of the court "as the surge in habeas corpus petitions within the immigration realm has done for months."

Beyond seeking habeas relief, the petitioners requested mandamus, declaratory, and injunctive relief. 

The petitioners’ attorney also submitted an urgent motion for a temporary restraining order and a requirement for the opposition to justify why a preliminary injunction shouldn’t proceed.

The relevance of the additional requests — or their relevance to the facts — was not immediately obvious. 

The court simply noted that the habeas request was entirely unsupported by facts — because it wasn’t necessary initially.