COLUMN: A Texas judge rattles Trump with a biblical ruling

A Little Boy Taken from His Mother

On January 20, 2026, five-year-old Liam Conejo Ramos is returning home from preschool in a Minneapolis suburb. He’s wearing his favorite blue beanie and his Spider-Man backpack. Agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) were waiting for him in the driveway of his home. They arrested his father, Adrian Alexander Conejo Arias, who was seeking asylum in the United States. According to witnesses and school officials, the agents used Liam as “bait”: they asked him to knock on the door so his mother would open it. The government categorically denies this. According to the Department of Homeland Security, the father fled on foot and left the child in the car. The agents allegedly “respected the father’s wishes” by keeping Liam with him. Lie or truth? It doesn’t matter. The result is the same: a five-year-old child is torn from his mother and sent to a detention center in Texas, thousands of kilometers from home.

A Photo That Became a Symbol

The photo of Liam, standing in the icy driveway, wearing a blue beanie and carrying a Spider-Man backpack, has gone viral around the world. It has become a symbol of Trump’s immigration policy. Protests have erupted. Democratic lawmakers are outraged. Representatives Joaquin Castro and Jasmine Crockett traveled to the Dilley detention center in Texas to see Liam. Castro reports that the child slept through the entire thirty-minute visit. His father says he is “depressed and sad.” Liam is sick, lethargic, and crying out for his mother. Meanwhile, in Minneapolis, at least seven children from the area have been detained by ICE. Teachers and school principals are terrified. Zena Stenvik, superintendent of the Columbia Heights School District, says, “We feel hunted. We feel under siege.” ICE agents are patrolling around schools. Parents are too afraid to walk their children to school. Some students are taking classes online because they no longer want to leave their homes.

Do you want to know what really makes me furious? It’s not just that people are being arrested. It’s that children are being traumatized to meet quotas. Yes, quotas. Stephen Miller, the White House chief of staff for policy, spoke of a target of 3,000 arrests per day. Three thousand. Per day. And to reach that goal, they’re willing to do anything. Even use a five-year-old as bait. Even separate him from his mother. Even lock him up in a detention center where he gets sick. Is this Trump’s America? Is this “greatness restored”?

Three Pages of Judicial Fury

On January 31, 2026, Fred Biery issues his ruling. Three pages. But three pages worth their weight in gold. From the very first lines, the tone is set: “This case stems from the government’s ill-conceived and incompetently implemented pursuit of daily deportation quotas—apparently even if it means traumatizing children.” ” Biery does not mince words. He speaks of a “treacherous thirst for unlimited power” and the “imposition of cruelty.” He accuses the government of ignoring “a historic American document called the Declaration of Independence.” He quotes Thomas Jefferson and his warnings against “a potential authoritarian king.” He points out that the Constitution requires an “independent judicial officer” to issue warrants, not “administrative warrants issued by the executive branch to itself.” He calls this “the fox guarding the henhouse.”

Jesus Weeps

But the masterstroke is the end of the ruling. Biery signs his order with a photo of Liam in the icy driveway. Below it, he writes two Bible verses. Matthew 19:14: “Jesus said, ‘Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.’ ” And John 11:35: “Jesus wept.” Two verses. Two sentences. A devastating message. Biery isn’t just saying that Liam’s detention is illegal. He’s saying it’s immoral. He’s saying it’s cruel. He’s saying that even Jesus would weep. And he’s right. The ruling orders the release of Liam and his father “as soon as possible” but no later than February 3. The government must then file a report confirming their release by February 4. Biery concludes by quoting Benjamin Franklin: “A republic—if you can keep it.” Then he signs off “with a judicial finger in the constitutional dike.”

When a federal judge has to quote the Bible to remind the government that we don’t torture children, it means we’ve lost our soul. When he has to invoke Jesus to say, “Stop this cruelty,” it means we’ve crossed a line we should never have approached. Fred Biery didn’t just issue a ruling. He sounded the alarm. He said, “Look at what we’ve become.” And frankly, it’s terrifying.

The Deafening Silence

Following Biery’s ruling, the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security have remained silent. No official comment. No public reaction. Nothing. Vice President JD Vance, who had vigorously defended ICE’s tactics in Minnesota, had stated a few days earlier that even though these arrests were “traumatic” for the children, “simply being a parent does not grant you complete immunity from law enforcement.” A statement that rings hollow in the wake of Biery’s ruling. The Trump administration claimed that Conejo Arias arrived in the United States illegally in December 2024 from Ecuador. But the family’s attorney, Marc Prokosch, asserts that they have an active asylum application that allows them to remain in the country legally. Who is telling the truth? The government or the attorney? Biery rules: it doesn’t matter. The detention is illegal in any case.

Minneapolis Under Siege

Meanwhile, the immigration operation in Minnesota continues. It is the largest federal immigration enforcement operation ever conducted, according to federal officials. Approximately 3,000 agents have been deployed. Daily clashes between activists and immigration agents. Two U.S. citizens killed by federal agents. Protests across the country. A massive mobilization in Minnesota. Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and other officials asked a federal judge to issue a preliminary injunction to halt the operation. On January 31, the judge denied the request. The operation continues. Trump, for his part, ordered the Department of Homeland Security “under no circumstances” to get involved in protests in cities led by Democrats, unless they request federal assistance or federal property is threatened. A strategic retreat? Or an attempt to avoid more disastrous images?

The Trump administration’s silence speaks volumes. They cannot defend the indefensible. They cannot justify the detention of a five-year-old child. So they remain silent. They hope it will blow over. That people will forget. But we will not forget. We will not forget Liam in his blue beanie. We will not forget his mother’s tears. We will not forget Fred Biery’s words. Because those words will remain. They will go down in history.

A Judge Who Likes to Stir Things Up

This isn’t Fred Biery’s first controversial ruling. In April 2013, he issued an opinion in the case “35 Bar and Grille LLC, et al. v. The City of San Antonio.” The case involved strip clubs. Biery wrote a 26-page ruling packed with sexual puns, double entendres, and innuendo. He wrote sentences like “The City’s Ordinance is not narrowly tailored” when discussing strippers’ clothing. The media loved it. The British Telegraph ran the headline: “The World’s Naughtiest Judicial Opinion.” Biery became famous for his provocative writing style. Some found him brilliant. Others found him inappropriate. He didn’t care.

The Battle Over the Ten Commandments

In August 2025, Biery blocked a Texas law that required schools to display the Ten Commandments in every classroom. The law, passed in June, was part of a conservative push to bring religion back into public schools. Biery issued a temporary injunction, preventing certain Texas schools from enforcing the law. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is furious. He vows to appeal. Biery stands his ground. For him, the law violates the separation of church and state. Period. In June 2022, Biery makes a statement that shocks the legal world: he publicly says that he does not read the decisions of the Fifth Court of Appeals. It’s a scandal. The Fifth Court of Appeals is the higher court that can overturn his rulings. Not reading its opinions is like saying, “I don’t care what you think.” Biery later backtracked, calling it a “courtroom joke.” But the damage was done. His reputation as a maverick judge was cemented.

Is Biery a genius or a provocateur? Honestly, I think he’s both. He knows he’s making waves. He knows he’s ruffling the feathers of conservatives. He knows he’s shocking legal purists. And he keeps going. Because deep down, he believes in something. He believes that justice shouldn’t be cold and distant. He believes it must have a soul. And sometimes, to awaken people’s consciences, you have to shock them. You have to provoke them. You have to unsettle them.

A Symbolic Victory

The Biery ruling is a victory for Liam and his family. The law firm of Jennifer Scarborough, which represents Liam and his father, states in a press release that the family will soon be reunited. “We are pleased that the family can now focus on being together and finding some peace after this traumatic ordeal,” the statement says. Liam and his father are released. They return to Minneapolis. They are reunited with Liam’s mother. A happy ending? Not really. Because the story doesn’t end there. Liam and his father are still in the asylum process. They could still be deported. Biery’s decision does not resolve their immigration status. It merely orders their release from detention. It is a temporary, fragile, and uncertain victory.

An Important Legal Precedent

But Biery’s decision has broader implications. It sets a precedent: administrative warrants issued by ICE are not sufficient. A judicial warrant, signed by an independent judge, is required to detain someone. This is the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Biery emphasizes this point forcefully. He states that the Constitution “trumps” the detention of Liam and his father—an obvious pun on the president’s name. Biery cannot resist a bit of provocation, even in such a serious ruling. Other judges might draw inspiration from this ruling. Other families might challenge their detention by invoking the Fourth Amendment. Biery’s ruling could open a breach in Trump’s immigration policy. Or it might not. It all depends on whether other judges are willing to follow his example.

Biery’s decision is important. But it doesn’t change everything. Liam is free, yes. But how many other children are still being detained? How many other families are being separated? How many other lives are being shattered? Biery’s decision is a drop in the ocean. An important drop, certainly. But a drop nonetheless. And that makes me sad. Because we shouldn’t need a judge to remind us not to traumatize children. We should know that. We should feel it. We should live it.

An activist judge?

Conservatives were quick to criticize Biery. To them, he is an “activist judge” who imposes his personal opinions instead of applying the law. They criticize Biery for using biblical quotes in a judicial decision. They say it’s inappropriate, that it mixes religion and justice. They accuse Biery of playing politics from the bench. Some go even further. They say Biery is seeking attention, that he wants to make headlines, that he thinks he’s a hero. They point to his history of controversial decisions. They recall the strip club case, the statement about the Fifth Court of Appeals, and the blocking of the Ten Commandments law. To them, Biery is a problem—a judge who does not respect the limits of his role.

An Emotional Decision?

Other critics take a more nuanced view. They acknowledge that Liam’s detention was problematic. But they believe Biery went too far in his ruling. They say a judge must remain neutral, objective, and detached. That biblical quotes and photos of children have no place in a judicial opinion. That Biery let his emotions get the better of him. That he wrote an emotional ruling instead of a legal one. They fear that this approach will undermine the credibility of the justice system. That it will give the impression that judges decide based on their feelings rather than on the law. That it will open the door for other judges to do the same—but in the opposite direction.

Biery’s critics have a point. Yes, his ruling is emotional. Yes, it’s provocative. Yes, it breaks the mold. But you know what? So much the better. Because sometimes, cold, detached law isn’t enough. Sometimes, emotion is needed. We need humanity. We need anger. Biery didn’t just apply the law. He reminded us why the law exists. To protect the vulnerable. To limit power. To prevent cruelty. And if that makes him an activist judge, then let’s have more activist judges.

Trump Will Not Back Down

Biery’s ruling is unlikely to change Trump’s immigration policy. The administration has promised mass deportations. It has set quotas. It has deployed thousands of agents. It isn’t going to stop because of a ruling by a federal judge in Texas. Trump and his team will appeal. They will challenge the ruling. They will try to have it overturned. And even if the ruling stands, it applies only to Liam and his father. It does not protect other families. It does not change the law. It does not put an end to deportations. It is a symbolic victory, but not a strategic one.

Will other judges follow suit?

The real question is: Will other judges follow Biery’s example? Will they start blocking detentions based on administrative warrants? Will they require judicial warrants? If so, that could significantly slow down ICE operations. It could force the administration to change its tactics. It could protect thousands of families. But that’s a big “if.” Because not all judges are like Biery. Many are more cautious, more conservative, and more reluctant to challenge the government. And then there’s the Supreme Court. If the case goes all the way up there, who knows what will happen? With its conservative majority, the Supreme Court could very well overturn Biery’s decision and uphold ICE’s practices. That would be a major blow to immigrant rights advocates.

I’m not optimistic. I wish I were. I wish I could believe that Biery’s decision will change everything. That other judges will stand up. That justice will prevail. But I know the reality. Trump won’t back down. His administration will carry on. Deportations will continue. Family separations will continue. And most judges will remain silent. Because it’s easier. Because it’s safer. Because challenging those in power takes courage. And courage is rare.

Fred Biery: Hero or Provocateur?

Is Fred Biery a hero? A provocateur? An activist judge? A defender of the Constitution? Honestly, he’s probably all of those things at once. He’s a 78-year-old judge who refuses to stay silent. Who refuses to play by the rules. Who refuses to accept the unacceptable. His ruling on Liam Conejo Ramos will go down in history. Not because it changed the law. Not because it stopped deportations. But because it said out loud what many think but don’t say: what’s happening is cruel, immoral, and unconstitutional. Biery used his judicial power to voice his anger. To express his disgust. To remind the government that the Constitution exists. That rights exist. That humanity exists.

A Necessary Reminder

In her ruling, Biery quotes Benjamin Franklin: “A republic, if you can keep it.” It is a warning. A caution. A reminder that democracy is fragile. That it can collapse. That it must be protected. Biery signs off “with a judicial finger in the constitutional dike.” A powerful image. A single judge, trying to hold back the floodwaters of authoritarianism. It seems hopeless. It seems futile. But it’s necessary. Because if no one puts their finger in the dam, it will give way. And we’ll all drown. Biery’s decision won’t save America. But it reminds us of what we stand to lose. And sometimes, that’s all we can do. Remind. Warn. Resist.

Fred Biery did what he had to do. He said no. He said stop. He said, “Not in my name.” And for that, I respect him. Because we need people like him. We need people who refuse to stay silent. Who refuse to obey blindly. Who refuse to accept cruelty as normal. Biery isn’t perfect. His decision isn’t perfect. But it’s human. It’s courageous. It’s necessary. And in a world where so many people look the other way and stay silent, that’s worth all the gold in the world. So thank you, Fred Biery. Thank you for having the courage to say what others don’t dare to say. Thank you for reminding us that even Jesus would weep at what we have become. And thank you for showing us that it is never too late to resist.

Signed, Jacques Provost