How Often Do Immigration Habeas Petitions Actually Win?

Search for a habeas corpus success rate and you will find law firm pages quoting a single figure. Over 90 percent is a common one. Almost none say what was counted, over what period, or in which federal district.

That gap matters, because the honest answer is more useful to a family than the marketed one. Since January 2025, people in ICE custody have filed more than 73,000 federal habeas petitions, and how those cases ended varied enormously by district, statute and judge. In one district the median case closes in about 12 days; in another it takes 92.

This guide sets out what the 2026 court data actually shows: the filing volumes, where outcomes have been strongest and weakest, what separates a granted petition from a denied one, and why a percentage is the wrong number on which to base a decision about someone you love.

Why There Is No Single National “Success Rate”

No federal agency publishes a grant rate for immigration habeas petitions. The courts record how a case closed, not whether the person got what they asked for. The gap between those two things is where every published habeas corpus success rate gets its number.

A habeas case can close in at least six ways:

• Granted. Relief is ordered, most often a bond hearing.
• Denied. The court finds the detention lawful on the record presented.
• Moot. The person was released or deported before a ruling issued.
• Dismissed without prejudice. A technical defect ends it, but it can be refiled.
• Transferred. A move out of the district can force a new filing elsewhere.
• Conceded. DHS agrees to a bond hearing, ending it with no ruling on the merits.

Count granted against denied and you produce a very high figure. Count every closure and you get a much lower one. Neither describes an individual case. Our guide to habeas corpus and ICE detention explains how a § 2241 petition works.

Key point: A published success rate tells you how the publisher chose to count — not how a federal judge will read your loved one’s file.

What the 2025–2026 Filing Volumes Show

ProPublica’s public docket tracker recorded 73,318 immigration habeas cases filed since January 2025, current to August 25, 2026 — more in the first thirteen months of the second Trump administration than in the previous three combined.

TRAC, the court-records project at Syracuse University, measured the same wave: immigration habeas suits went from 105 in March 2025 to 9,059 in March 2026, an eighty-six-fold increase. Between October 2025 and March 2026 alone, 31,357 were filed across 82 of the 90 federal judicial districts.

Filings peaked in February 2026 and have slowed since April, but remain far above any historical level. Volume is not outcome. It does explain the timing gaps below: courts that absorbed thousands of cases handled them at very different speeds.

Where Outcomes Have Been Strongest, and Why

On the central question of the past year — whether people who entered without inspection can be held with no bond hearing — petitioners have prevailed far more often than the government.

A Reuters review published February 14, 2026 counted more than 400 federal judges ruling in at least 4,421 cases, since October 2025, that immigrants were being detained unlawfully — judges appointed by presidents of both parties. A separate Politico review found the pattern held.

The most telling acknowledgement came from a court that ruled for the government. In Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, decided February 6, 2026, the Fifth Circuit noted that over a thousand detainees had sought bond hearings by habeas and that “in most of these cases, the district court found in favor of the petitioner.”

Geography is the strongest single predictor

At the appellate level the divide is lopsided. As of August 28, 2026, eight courts of appeals — the First, Second, Third, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh — have rejected the government’s reading of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), holding that people arrested in the interior fall under § 1226(a), which permits a bond hearing. Two, the Fifth and Eighth, upheld it. The Fourth heard argument in May and has not ruled. Our explainer on the § 1225(b)(2) bond-denial question covers that fight.

Speed follows the same logic. Minnesota, which absorbed a surge of filings during an enforcement push this year, closes habeas cases in a median of about 12 days. The Middle District of Georgia, home to Stewart Detention Center, sits at 29 days and has cleared nearly 80 percent of its docket after adopting a standing order for these petitions.

Where Outcomes Have Been Weakest, and Why

The weakest outcomes are usually not denials. They are cases that sit. A ProPublica analysis of more than 70,000 habeas cases, published September 3, 2026, found median time to close ranging from six days in the fastest districts to 92 days in the slowest.

Three things drive the slow end. Docket concentration: in southern Mississippi, home to one of the largest ICE facilities, a single judge had been assigned 747 habeas cases by August 25, 2026, roughly 72 percent still open.

Briefing practice: 28 U.S.C. § 2243 contemplates a government response in three days, extendable to twenty. Louisiana attorneys describe judges granting up to 60, treating these petitions like ordinary civil litigation. Minnesota judges order responses in three or four.

The individual judge: in the Western District of Oklahoma, three judges appointed by the same president posted medians of 144, 91 and 49 days on comparable caseloads. Same district, same law, different clocks.

Delay carries a cost no success rate captures. One Oklahoma attorney reported that of 130 completed cases, nearly one in five ended before the client received an answer: four were deported, fifteen returned home rather than wait. Legal uncertainty compounds it — after the Fifth Circuit vacated a panel decision, some Louisiana judges paused cases pending rehearing. We covered that when the Fifth Circuit reversed course in July.

What Separates a Granted Petition From a Denied One

Across the reported decisions the same variables recur. None is a percentage.

1. Which statute the government relies on. A § 1226(a), a § 1225(b)(2)(A) and a § 1226(c) case are three different arguments.
2. Where the person is physically detained. Circuit law, not state of residence, controls — and a transfer can change the answer overnight.
3. How long custody has lasted. Prolonged detention arguments strengthen with time, especially where removal is no longer reasonably foreseeable.
4. Criminal history. Grounds in § 1226(c), including those added by the Laken Riley Act in 2025, can trigger mandatory detention regardless of the § 1225 fight.
5. The quality of the record. Custody timeline, immigration court orders and written ICE communications do real work in a petition.
6. Procedural correctness. The wrong district or respondent can close a case with no ruling on the detention at all.

One clarification families rarely get in advance: a granted petition most often produces a bond hearing, not immediate release. An immigration judge then decides custody, and bond still has to be paid. A rate folding “won a bond hearing” into “walked out the same week” describes two very different results.

Why No Lawyer Should Quote You a Percentage for Your Case

Three reasons a firm-level habeas corpus success rate should make you cautious rather than reassured.

It is unverifiable. Most habeas filings are partially restricted from public view, so no outside party can check a firm’s numerator or denominator.

It measures case selection, not skill. A firm accepting only strong cases in circuits where the law already favours petitioners will report a very high figure — which says nothing about a § 1225(b)(2) case in Texas or Mississippi.

The law underneath it is moving. Several certiorari petitions on mandatory detention are pending before the Supreme Court, and the Fifth Circuit rehears the constitutional question on September 24, 2026. A rate calculated on 2025 law does not describe 2026 law.

Attorney advertising rules in most states also restrict outcome claims that create unjustified expectations. For those reasons we do not publish a success rate for our own cases. We publish our case results with the facts attached, including one Tacoma case that took 13 months to resolve, so you see circumstances rather than an average.

Takeaway: An honest assessment names the statute, the district, the length of custody and the realistic relief — not a number.

Frequently Asked Questions

The Percentage Is Marketing; the District and the Statute Are the Case

The 2026 data supports one modest, honest claim: in the fight over bond hearings for people who entered without inspection, district courts have overwhelmingly sided with detainees, and eight of the ten circuits to rule have agreed. It does not support a promise. Where a person is held, how long, which statute ICE invokes and what the custody file shows will shape the outcome far more than any figure on any website — including this one.

A firm leading with a number is describing its own case mix. A firm leading with your file is describing your case.

If bond was refused because the immigration judge said there was no jurisdiction, our denied bond hearing practice page explains why that decision deserves a different review from an ordinary denial based on danger or flight risk.

Legal Disclaimer: This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. The filing figures, median timelines and decisions described here reflect publicly available court data and reporting reviewed through September 4, 2026, and immigration detention law is changing rapidly. Nothing in this article states, implies or predicts a success rate for this firm or an outcome in any individual case. Whether habeas relief is available depends on the detention statute, the district of confinement, prior custody proceedings, detention length, immigration and criminal history, transfer status, and controlling federal precedent. Later appellate or Supreme Court action may change the legal framework discussed here. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Consult qualified counsel regarding a specific case.

Sources

1. Tracking the Historic Rise of Habeas Cases Filed by Detained Immigrants, ProPublica, published February 10, 2026, data current to August 25, 2026.
2. These Judges Take Months to Decide If Immigrants Have Been Unlawfully Detained, ProPublica, September 3, 2026.
3. Surge in Immigration Lawsuits Hits Record High in 2026, Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), Syracuse University, May 11, 2026.
4. Courts have ruled 4,400 times that ICE jailed people illegally, Reuters, February 14, 2026.
5. A Circuit Split Ripe for Review: Mandatory Detention Under INA § 235(b)(2)(A), Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC), last updated August 19, 2026.
6. Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, No. 25-20496, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, February 6, 2026.
7. Buele Morocho v. Warden Philadelphia FDC, No. 26-1150, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, August 28, 2026.
8. 28 U.S.C. § 2243 — Issuance of Writ; Return; Hearing; Decision, Cornell Legal Information Institute.
9. 8 U.S.C. § 1225 — Inspection and Applicants for Admission, Cornell Legal Information Institute.
10. 8 U.S.C. § 1226 — Apprehension and Detention of Aliens, Cornell Legal Information Institute.