Published September 22, 2026 at 3:36 PM ET · Updated September 22, 2026 at 4:08 PM ET
Judge temporarily blocks deportation of illegal immigrant shot by ICE agent in Austin
2 independent outlets are covering this story, first reported here by Raw Story. Verification: Confirmed (how we verify). Every headline links to the original reporting.
A federal judge has temporarily blocked the deportation of an illegal immigrant who was shot by an ICE agent in Austin. The immigrant's attorney said the ruling comes amid reports that no body camera footage of the shooting exists.
Patriot Watch first flagged this story 8 d ago, when Raw Story reported it. Coverage has since grown to 2 independent outlets, including 1 wire/mainstream feed. The most recent report came 8 d ago from Fox News.
⚖ The Constitutional Angle
An alien who has entered the country, lawfully or not, is a person under the Fifth Amendment: Yamataya v. Fisher held he cannot be removed without notice and a meaningful chance to be heard. INS v. St. Cyr preserves federal habeas review of removal orders. So the judge may hold removal until that process is actually provided.
Kaoru Yamataya v. Thomas M. Fisher, Immigrant and Chinese Inspector (The Japanese Immigrant Case) 189 U.S. 86 (1903)
Vote: Majority for the Court (Harlan); Brewer and Peckham dissenting. Exact 7-2 tally not… · Opinion: Harlan
Although Congress may commit exclusion and deportation to executive officers without judicial trial, an alien who has landed and become part of the U.S.
Immigration and Naturalization Service v. St. Cyr 533 U.S. 289 (2001)
Vote: 5-4 · Opinion: Justice John Paul Stevens
Two holdings. (1) Jurisdiction: notwithstanding AEDPA and IIRIRA's review-stripping provisions, federal district courts retain jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to decide pure questions of law in habeas petitions filed by aliens facing removal. Because barring all judicial review of such questions would raise a serious Suspension Clause problem — habeas at its historical core ran to executive detention — the Court required a clear, unambiguous statement from Congress before reading a statute to eliminate habeas, and found none.
Precedent facts from the PW Law Library — primary-source verified & independently audited
