“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case?
The Trump Administration challenged the release of a protester against ICE who had been arrested for his activities.
What happened in this case?
In December 2025, the Trump Administration launched a mass immigration enforcement effort that deployed thousands of agents to Minnesota and led to significant protest activity. Minnesota resident Kyle Wagner was an ICE opponent who regularly posted online to criticize ICE. In one post he included purported personal identifying information of an ICE supporter. Based on that post, the government arrested him for cyber stalking and sought to keep him in prison pending trial.
The district judge imposed numerous conditions, including severely limiting internet use, but rejected the government’s effort to keep Wagner in prison. The government appealed . In August, Trump Sixth Circuit judge Whitney Hermandorfer and Reagan judge Alan Norris issued a 2-1 decision that reversed the court below and held that Wagner should be confined in prison pending trial jn USA v Wagner. Biden judge Rachel Bloomekatz dissented.
The majority wrote that the government had sufficiently proved Wagner’s “dangerousness” and risk of flight to justify pre-trial detention.
Why did Judge Bloomekatz dissent?
Judge Bloomekatz cited clear prior case law for the proposition that “deferential” review should be applied in reviewing mixed law and fact questions as in this case. Based on this standard and the complete record, she wrote, the government “has not met its burden” to show by “clear and convincing evidence” that the trial court’s safeguards were insufficient.
Why is this decision harmful?
The ruling made possible by Trump judge Hermandorfer obviously harms Kyle Wagner by requiring him to remain in prison pending his trial. It also sets a bad precedent for appellate review of pretrial detention decisions, particularly in the states within the Sixth Circuit, including Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio,and Tennessee. The case also shows the importance of our federal courts to justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.