ICE actions in Iowa ‘indefensible,’ lied to court, judge says

by Clark Kauffman, Iowa Capital Dispatch
January 26, 2026

A federal judge has criticized what he calls the “indefensible” actions of federal immigration enforcement agents in Iowa, ruling they illegally detained a man in the Muscatine County Jail and then attempted to “cover their tracks” through misleading legal filings.

The case involves 28-year-old Jorge Gonzalez Ochoa of Iowa City, who came to the United States from Colombia in 2024, seeking asylum and alleging he was fleeing persecution in the form of threats and extortion.

In October 2025, while still seeking permission to remain in the United States legally, Gonzalez Ochoa was charged by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement with unlawful use of a Social Security number and immigration documents. Prosecutors allege he worked under a false name, using a fraudulent Social Security card and permanent resident card to obtain a job at The Bread Garden Market, a restaurant in Iowa City, where he was arrested.

According to the subsequent findings of a U.S. magistrate in the case, there were members of the public in the area when Gonzalez Ochoa was arrested at The Bread Garden Market, and they asked the arresting ICE agents to identify themselves.

“No identification was made,” Magistrate Stephen B. Jackson found. “At the time of the arrest, the ICE agents were in plain clothes.”

At a hearing on Gonzalez Ochoa’s subsequent request for pretrial release, ICE agent Jess Liebold testified on behalf of the government but was unable to answer many questions about the case. “Based upon his testimony, it is clear Officer Liebold was not competent to testify,” Jackson later ruled. “Indeed, his testimony and lack of knowledge as to basic, material facts, undermines the government’s (case).”

Jackson noted that “nothing the government presented showed Gonzalez Ochoa posed a serious risk of flight … No evidence was shown to demonstrate he was using fraudulent documents for hiding his identity from ICE or to be able to travel undetected and surreptitiously. Instead, he was apparently using them to work, as he has a family to support. Indeed, the conditions of his release from ICE custody included a GPS monitor which he, apparently, wore in compliance with those conditions, as that is how ICE was able to monitor and locate him.”

Judge calls ICE actions ‘indefensible’

On Dec. 22, 2025, with the criminal charges still pending, a federal judge ordered Gonzalez Ochoa’s release, subject to supervision, while the case proceeded toward trial, which is now scheduled for March 2, 2026. The order required ICE to release Gonzalez Ochoa from the Muscatine County Jail at 10 a.m. on Dec. 23, 2025.

At 9:59 a.m. that day, officials with ICE sent the jail an arrest warrant and an accompanying “order to detain” for Gonzalez Ochoa. By law, those two documents should have been accompanied by a “notice to appear,” served in person at the jail, indicating when Gonzalez Ochoa could expect a court hearing on the matter. By all accounts, no such notice was provided, although ICE did eventually send a notice to Gonzalez Ochoa by regular mail.

Gonzalez Ochoa’s attorney, Katherine Melloy Goettel, objected and took ICE and the county jail to court, arguing ICE had unlawfully arrested her client and was keeping him unlawfully detained at the jail. She also argued Gonzalez Ochoa was being illegally denied a bond hearing and his due process rights.

Recently, U.S. District Judge Stephen Locher issued a ruling that was highly critical of ICE’s actions in the case.

“With no pending or newly initiated removal proceeding, ICE had no basis as of 10:00 a.m. on Dec. 23, 2025, to issue the arrest warrant or the order to detain Gonzalez Ochoa,” Locher ruled.

He noted that ICE then failed to provide Gonzalez Ochoa with the required notice to appear.

“The only logical explanation is that the Notice to Appear did not yet exist,” Locher found. “In context, it appears that ICE served the Notice to Appear by regular mail to obfuscate the timing of events and suggest that it might have been issued at the same time as the arrest warrant and order to detain. In other words, ICE knew [Locher’s emphasis] it should not have issued the arrest warrant and order to detain in the absence of a notice to appear, but sought to ‘cover its tracks.’ This is unacceptable.”

Locher went on state that “ICE was required to allow Gonzalez Ochoa to be released at 10 a.m., period — not to arrest him and then scramble around later to backfill crucial missing documents in a misleading way… ICE violated federal law and this court’s order dated Dec.  22, 2025, requiring him to be released. Again: This is unacceptable.”

Judge orders bond hearing

As for the argument that ICE was continuing to illegally hold Gonzalez Ochoa in the Muscatine County Jail, Locher ruled in the government’s favor finding that regardless of its earlier, illegal acts, “ICE eventually commenced a new removal proceeding and thus has the authority to detain Gonzalez Ochoa in connection therewith.”

On the issue of whether Gonzalez Ochoa is entitled to a bond hearing, Locher noted that an overwhelming number of judges have found no merit in the government’s argument that such detainees are subject to mandatory detention, and he ordered that a bond hearing for Gonzalez Ochoa be scheduled.

Muscatine County Jail officials said Monday that Gonzalez Ochoa was released on Jan. 9, 2026, seven days after Locher’s order was issued.

Andrew Kahl, the lead attorney for the government in the case, declined to comment on Locher’s ruling, as did MacKenzie Benson Tubbs, the public information officer for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of Iowa.

Since June of last year, more than 300 federal judges in 1,600 cases have ruled that the Trump administration’s interpretation of the law on bond hearings is incorrect, ignores decades of past practice, and conflicts other longstanding federal laws on immigration.

Despite those rulings, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, of which ICE is a part, and the U.S. Department of Justice continue to use that interpretation of the law to argue for mandatory detention. In addition, immigration judges — who are not part of the Judicial Branch and instead function as administrative employees of the Executive Branch led by the president — are continuing to deny detainees bond hearings unless otherwise ordered by a federal judge in U.S. District Court.

Iowa Capital Dispatch is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Iowa Capital Dispatch maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Kathie Obradovich for questions: [email protected].