Immigration Watch: Updates as of February 12, 2026

We will examine growing differences among states in their cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, the unprecedented rise in habeas corpus petitions challenging immigration detention, and a new lawsuit targeting the Trump Administration’s Gold Card immigration program.

These developments reflect increasing legal, political, and constitutional tensions across the immigration system.

---

State Responses to ICE Enforcement Vary Widely

A widening divide has emerged between Republican-led and Democratic-led states in their responses to federal immigration enforcement.

Some states are declining to limit ICE activity, while others are implementing measures aimed at restricting cooperation or increasing oversight of federal agents.

States Supporting Federal Enforcement

States such as Kentucky, Tennessee, Indiana, and New Hampshire have not taken legislative action to push back against ICE operations and continue to allow cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities.

States Limiting Cooperation with ICE

In contrast, states including New York, California, Illinois, Maine, and Massachusetts have enacted or proposed measures to limit ICE’s presence and enhance protections for residents.

These measures include:

• Restrictions on local law enforcement cooperation with ICE
• ID requirements for federal agents
• Mask bans for officers during enforcement operations
• Creation of hotlines to report ICE activity and alleged misconduct

Minnesota has emerged as a particularly notable example. Democratic lawmakers are advancing legislation that would allow civil lawsuits against federal agents and strengthen tenant protections for immigrants facing eviction.

In Pennsylvania and California, discussions have included the possibility of prosecuting federal agents under state law.

Debate Over Federal Agent Immunity

The White House has advocated for expanded immunity protections for federal immigration agents while they are on duty.

However, many legal scholars argue that broad immunity could raise constitutional concerns and undermine accountability mechanisms designed to protect civil rights.

This growing state-federal divide is likely to continue shaping immigration enforcement policy in 2026 and beyond.

---

Surge in Habeas Corpus Petitions Challenging Immigration Detention

Federal courts are experiencing a dramatic increase in habeas corpus petitions related to immigration detention.

Habeas corpus, which translates to “you should have the body,” is a legal procedure available to both citizens and noncitizens to challenge unlawful detention.

Immigrants may file habeas petitions to argue that:

• They are being detained without legal authority
• Their detention has become excessively prolonged
• They have been denied required bond hearings
• Their detention conditions are unlawful

Record Number of Habeas Filings in 2026

As of February 3, 2026, more than 5,000 habeas cases have been filed nationwide this year alone.

For comparison, fewer than 500 such cases were filed in all of 2024.

Immigration attorneys report filing more habeas petitions in the first weeks of 2026 than in their entire careers.

Court Response to Detention Challenges

Federal judges, appointed by both Democratic and Republican administrations, have frequently ruled against the government in detention-related cases.

The surge appears linked to changes in how the Department of Homeland Security is interpreting detention authority and bond hearing requirements.

Courts have found instances where:

• ICE failed to provide legally required bond hearings
• Agency practices violated prior court orders
• Detention extended beyond permissible timeframes

In one case, a judge held ICE Director Todd Lyons in contempt.

It is important to note that the surge in filings likely represents only a fraction of affected detainees. Filing a habeas petition typically requires legal representation and financial resources, which many detained immigrants lack.

---

Lawsuit Challenges the Trump Administration’s Gold Card Program

The Trump Administration is facing a lawsuit challenging the legality of its Gold Card immigration program.

The lawsuit names the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Department of State, the Department of Commerce, and USCIS as defendants.

Legal Arguments Against the Gold Card

Plaintiffs argue that the Gold Card program violates the Immigration and Nationality Act by improperly reallocating EB-1 and EB-2 immigrant visas.

EB-1 and EB-2 visas are intended for highly skilled professionals, including individuals with extraordinary ability or those qualifying for a National Interest Waiver.

According to the complaint:

• The program diverts visas away from qualified professionals
• The system prioritizes applicants based on financial contribution rather than merit
• The administration is effectively creating a pay-to-play immigration pathway

Impact on Highly Skilled Workers

Demand for EB-1 and EB-2 visas already exceeds annual limits.

Plaintiffs argue that reallocating these visas to Gold Card applicants could:

• Increase processing delays for highly skilled workers
• Disrupt employer workforce planning
• Undermine the statutory framework designed to prioritize professional qualifications

The lawsuit seeks to have the Gold Card program declared unlawful and to block its continued implementation.

---

Conclusion: Legal and Policy Battles Continue

From diverging state responses to ICE enforcement, to record-breaking habeas corpus filings, to litigation over the Gold Card program, the immigration system remains in a period of rapid legal and political change.

These developments raise important questions about federal authority, constitutional protections, and the future of employment-based immigration.

---

If you have questions about how these policy changes may affect you or your organization, contact our office for guidance tailored to your situation. To read more about what I’ve written about today and more, you can subscribe to my bi-weekly LinkedIn newsletter, Immigration Watch.