Federal immigration officials had once again flouted his authority by keeping a man locked up in a California City detention center after Nunley ordered him released. When he was finally set free, the man was booted onto the street with no passport, driver’s license or other personal effects. The judge’s demand that the items be returned were met with silence.
And so on Tuesday, Nunley, the chief judge of the Eastern District of California, slapped Department of Justice attorney Jonathan Yu with an official sanction and a $250 fine.
In a scathing order, Nunley laid out why he was compelled to take such a rare step. The fine may have been less than some traffic tickets, but it’s nearly unheard for a judge to formally admonish a government lawyer.
By Yu’s own admission, he was drowning in work. In his order, Nunley recounted the attorney’s claim he’d been assigned more than 300 nearly identical cases in the last three months, all of immigrants in detention who argued they were being held without cause.
Court filings show many California cases involve longtime U.S. residents unexpectedly hauled off to jail after routine check-ins with immigration officials. One was an Afghan who’d helped the American war effort. Another a Cambodian grandmother of eight who fled Pol Pot’s killing fields as a girl nearly 50 years ago.
Until last year, most would have fought deportation on bond after a brief hearing with an immigration judge. Now, their only hope of release is to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus — a legal maneuver once typically reserved for death row inmates and suspected terrorists — inundating the country’s busiest federal courts with thousands of emergency suits.
The Trump administration attorney said he was trying to “triage” the situation, but Nunley found he repeatedly failed to comply, leaving people with the right to walk free stuck behind bars.
“The Court is not persuaded,” he wrote, issuing the sanctions.
The order came days after Nunley took the unusual step of announcing a “judicial emergency” in the district, which covers nearly half of California, stretching from the Oregon border to the Mojave Desert in the inland part of the state, including Fresno, Bakersfield and Sacramento.
In the last year, the Eastern District has received more petitions from immigration detainees than almost any other jurisdiction in the United States: More than 2,700 since January, compared to fewer than 500 last year and just 18 in 2024. Similar crises are playing out elsewhere, with federal courts in Minnesota briefly paralyzed amid the Trump administration’s enforcement blitz there last winter.
People detained are seen behind fences at an ICE detention facility in Adelanto, California on July 10, 2025.
(Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images)
In an interview with The Times, Nunley said dealing with the surge of activity since last summer has been “like being hit over the head with a bat.”
“We’re up all night doing these cases,” he said.
So far this year, the Eastern District’s six active judges have ordered almost people 2,000 freed.
“The majority of the cases that we see are cases where people should not be detained,” Nunley said. “They should be receiving hearings to determine whether or not they are to remain in this country, and until they receive those hearings, they should be free.”
Since last July, the Department of Homeland Security has ordered that all immigrants it arrests are subject to “mandatory detention” — a policy that had previously only applied to those caught at the border.
The change came four days after President Trump signed a spending bill that earmarked $45 billion to expand the federal network of immigrant lockups.
“This has been a sea change in the way the government has read the law,” said My Khanh Ngo, a senior staff attorney at the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project. “Almost every judge who has looked at this has agreed these people should get bond, and yet thousands of people are still sitting in detention.”
Elizabeth Vega, 15, right, and Darlene Rumualdo, 15, from Torres High School join labor organizers, clergy leaders and immigrant rights groups to protest immigration raids nationwide at La Placita Olvera in downtown Los Angeles on January 23, 2026.
(Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)
Longtime U.S. residents who might once have fought removal from home — where they can more easily gather evidence to support their case and confer with lawyers — are instead being held indefinitely.
Many have no criminal record. Some have been in the U.S. so long that the countries they came from no longer exist.
“People are locked up in the same facilities as people accused of crimes, people who’ve been convicted of crimes … and then you’re telling people, you have no shot of getting out,” Ngo said. “Detaining people and not giving them the chance to get out of detention is a way of coercing people to give up their claims.”
The habeas process can take weeks or months depending on the judge and the district.
“When the immigration cases dropped on our district, we got hit harder than any other outside West Texas,” Nunley said. “Initially we had more cases than anyone else.”
Today, data compiled by ProPublica and legal activist groups including the Immigration Justice Transparency Initiative show almost a quarter of the roughly 30,000 active habeas petitions in the United States are in California courts. Nunley’s own tabulations show half the California cases are in his district, where a perfect storm of stepped-up enforcement, a large population of immigrant workers and a concentration of detention centers produced a flash flood of habeas petitions.
The cases rely on the Constitution’s guarantee of due process before being deprived of life, liberty or property. But according to court filings, in some instances the government has argued “the Fifth Amendment does not apply” to detained immigrants.
DOJ lawyers responding to the bids for freedom now regularly complain they’re being crushed under paperwork.
Judges accustomed to having government lawyers comply with their orders have been left fuming.
In California’s Central District, which includes L.A. and surrounding areas, Judge Sunshine Sykes wrote a fiery decision earlier this year that said the Trump administration is inflicting “terror against noncitizens.”
Sykes is one of several federal judges across the country that have tried to compel the government to resume bond hearings. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked that decision in March, leaving the habeas system in place for now. But with challenges or recent decisions across multiple circuits, experts say the fight is fated for the Supreme Court.
“ICE has the law and the facts on its side, and it adheres to all court decisions until it ultimately gets them shot down by the highest court in the land,” a Homeland Security spokesperson said in an email to The Times.
A woman holds a “ICE not welcome here!” sign at a vigil in San Pedro in January.
(Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)
The lawyers fighting to free those jailed under the Trump administration’s mandatory detention policy say they were not initially equipped for these legal battles because they used to be exceedingly rare.
Most federal judges had only seen a handful of habeas petitions before last summer — then suddenly they had hundreds of requests for urgent relief, according to Jean Reisz, co-director of the USC Immigration Clinic.
Reisz said there are efforts to get pro bono law groups trained on how to effectively argue habeas cases, “but it takes a while to get up to speed.”
A federal agent asks residents to move back after a shooting during an immigration enforcement operation in Willowbrook on January 21, 2026.
(Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)
At the same time, Reisz said, lawyers are pushing judges who oversee the cases to act swiftly, since interminable procedural delays ensure people remain incarcerated.
“Most of the habeas petitions include a motion for temporary restraining orders, and that requires emergency decisions from the courts, which requires the courts to act very fast,” Reisz said.
In California’s federal district courts, the backlog remains thousands deep. Nunley said the system is struggling to keep up with the crush of cases.
“There’s nothing that says that noncitizens should not be entitled to due process,” Nunley said. “These are our people, they reside in our district. They’re entitled to the same due process that you and I are entitled to.”
Lord Sugar has chosen his 2026 finalists after the candidates faced several tense interviews
The Apprentice 2026 finalists revealed as fans fume over ‘robbed’ candidate(Image: BBC/Naked)
BBC’s The Apprentice has confirmed its 2026 finalists after eleven weeks of tough challenges.
Thursday’s (April 9) episode saw the final five candidates – Dan Miller, Karishma Vijay, Lawrence Rosenberg, Pascha Myhill, and Priyesh Bathia – prepare for the dreaded interview stage of the process, with Pascha and Karishma later advancing to the final.
Earlier in the episode, the business hopefuls were set to face a gruelling round of interviews with some of Lord Sugar’s toughest-talking business associates, Claude Littner, Claudine Collins, Linda Plant, and Mike Soutar.
Their business plans were picked apart, products were blind tested, and even a unique cocktail was prepared on the spot. Some contestants held their own, while others crumbled under the pressure.
Back in the boardroom, Lord Sugar had a tough decision to make, as only two candidates could make it through to next week’s grand final.
After a series of “brutal” interviews and debates in the boardroom, it was the end of the competition for Dan, Lawrence and Priyesh, while Pascha and Karishma sailed through to the grand finale.
Many viewers were delighted by the decision, with one person writing on X (formerly Twitter): “My final 2 are in the final!”
Another added: “Girl power final,” while a third said: “Best finalists they’ve had in a long time!” A fourth fan echoed the sentiment, saying: “Oh I am so pleased, an all female final. Well done ladies.”
However, some viewers were surprised that Lord Sugar didn’t choose to send Dan through, as he already runs a successful student recruitment company.
“I don’t think Dan should have been sent home,” one person wrote, with another adding: “Dan was robbed of the final 2.”
A third said: “I did not see that coming,” with another similarly sharing: “Gutted for Dan but if he can get control of finances he could be very successful in future.”
Recruitment consultant Pascha is proposing a new recruitment company within private healthcare. She aims to focus on supplying experienced, compliant, and compassionate professionals to private nursing homes, care homes, supported living services, and domiciliary care providers and nurseries within the UK.
Meanwhile, beauty brand owner Karishma is seeking investment to elevate her current business. Kishkin is a skincare-infused beauty brand that creates powerful and potent products that simplify a lengthy trend-driven skincare routine.
Next week, Pascha and Karishma will be joined by some of this series’ candidates as they launch their businesses to a room full of industry experts, and some legends from the last 20 years. This all comes before Lord Sugar decides who will become his next business partner.
The Apprentice is available to stream on BBC iPlayer
Some I’m A Celebrity South Africa viewers were so unimpressed with the latest episode twist that they slammed bosses, and one even called for the format to be axed
22:43, 07 Apr 2026Updated 22:44, 07 Apr 2026
Some I’m A Celebrity South Africa viewers were unimpressed with the latest episode(Image: ITV)
It’s safe to say I’m A Celebrity South Africa viewers were not impressed with the ending of Tuesday’s episode.
Just as Gemma Collins and Craig Charles battled it out during their first trial in the spin-off series, the episode featured a cliffhanger twist that left fans fuming. Gemma and Craig had just decided how much they were going to eat in the eating trial, battling it out for points for their team.
It all came down to the final showdown, but as hosts Ant McPartlin and Dec Donnelly kicked it off, the show ended. Featuring a cliffhanger and ending the episode before the trial had finished did not go down well with ITV viewers.
As many slammed the decision and bosses, one viewer even called for the format of the spin-off series to be axed entirely. With it being a pre-recorded series, filmed late last year, viewers have less involvement and it’s all a little different to the main series.
Taking to social media to call out ITV for ending the episode too early, one fan said: “What a cruel way to end that.” Another said: “No no no, it didn’t just end like that. Who do I’m celeb think they are. Love island?”
A third post read: “WHAT THE F**K. Axe this pre-recorded format immediately WHAT DO YOU MEAN ending the episode on a cliffhanger in the MIDDLE OF A TRIAL?!”
A further post said: “YOU CANT JUST END IT LIKE THAT WHAT THE HELL.” One fan wrote: “NOOOOOOOO WHY END THERE,” as another said: “A cliffhanger. You’re ending it on a cliffhanger.”
It comes as fans predicted a feud could be headed for three campmates on the show. After Beverley Callard brought up her launch episode drama with David Haye, her co-stars were stunned by his betrayal.
Back in the main camp, another campmate appeared to call David out after he moaned about their dinner, despite it being better than the rations the other camp were getting. David who feared he would go hungry.
Seeing the portion size, especially once split between the five campmates, he told stars including Sinitta that it wasn’t enough food. When it came to eating it though, he couldn’t finish his bowl. Sinitta pointed out that there was more food left over if he was still hungry, but he declined.
Speaking in the Bush Telegraph, Sinitta pointed out how he’d claimed the food wasn’t enough, yet he didn’t even eat what was in the food tin. Viewers were amused at Sinitta calling him out, and predicted both she and Beverley would end up clashing with David in a camp feud.
One fan said: “Sinitta and Beverly vs David Haye feud incoming.” Another fan theorised: “Haye I can see causing rows,” as a third said: “Obsessed with them all hating David.”
Netflix has confirmed Bridgerton’s fifth season is currently in production but fans aren’t happy about the direction of the hit period drama
Bridgerton fans fume ‘big mistake’ as Netflix confirms season 5 leads(Image: NETFLIX)
Bridgerton season five will officially focus on middle daughter Francesca with Hannah Dodd taking the lead in Netflix’s popular period romance drama.
Dodd will be starring alongside Masali Baduza as Michaela Stirling, marking the first time the hit streaming series will spotlight a same-sex couple.
The upcoming instalment, which is currently in production, will be set after the death of Francesca’s husband John Stirling (played by Victor Alli) as she begins to explore her complex feelings for his outgoing cousin.
A synopsis confirms: “The fifth season of Bridgerton spotlights introverted middle daughter Francesca.
“Two years after losing her beloved husband John, Fran decides to reenter the marriage mart for practical reasons.
Content cannot be displayed without consent
“But when John’s cousin Michaela returns to London to tend to the Kilmartin estate, Fran’s complicated feelings will have her questioning whether to stick to her pragmatic intentions or pursue her inner passions.”
A first-look teaser for the upcoming season has given fans a tantalising glimpse of the pair together, giving each other a tender glance as inspiring music swells.
While countless fans are thrilled to see Fran and Michaela’s romance develop, others have criticised the decision to delay Eloise Bridgerton’s (Claudia Jessie) storyline to season six.
In Julia Quinn’s original novels, 28-year-old Eloise finds love in the fifth book, To Sir Phillip, With Love, after exchanging letters with widower Sir Phillip Crane, played by Chris Fulton in the TV adaptation.
“Big mistake it should have been Eloise next, no buzz here l’m sorry to say,” one viewer fumed on X, adding a shrug emoji.
Someone else exclaimed: “BIG Mistake! should’ve been Eloise first, Fran should’ve had time to grieve.”
Another said: “im actually mad because wdym im not seeing [Eloise’s] season till 2030.” A third wrote: “THEYRE DOING FRANCESCA BEFORE ELOISE?? WHATTT.”
The conversation continued on Reddit, where one user reasoned: “I’m not sure how to feel about this I’m excited for them and their story but honestly what are they going to do with Eloise for another season, i just can’t see what they do with her.”
Watch Bridgerton on Netflix for free with Sky
This article contains affiliate links, we will receive a commission on any sales we generate from it. Learn more
Sky is giving away a free Netflix subscription with its new Sky Stream TV bundles, including the £15 Essential TV plan.
This lets members watch live and on-demand TV content without a satellite dish or aerial and includes hit shows like Bridgerton.
“I mean great but I have mixed feelings. I just really wanted Eloise to be the next,” another agreed.
Though someone else argued: “Ayyy, my girls!! So excited to see them lead, I know it’s going to be a fantastic season! Hopefully they can advance Eloise’s plotline as well, like how Fran’s story got a headstart in S3.”
Production starting this spring indicates the next season should arrive on Netflix at some point in 2027.
Hopefully that also means fans won’t be waiting too long before Eloise finally gets her time to shine.
