The Fight to Keep a 5-Year-Old and His Father Out of Immigration Detention

A Case That Captured the Nation’s Attention

The image that shocked America earlier this year remains seared in many people’s minds: a small five-year-old boy named Liam Conejo Ramos standing outside his Minneapolis home, wearing an innocent blue bunny hat and carrying a Spiderman backpack, surrounded by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. What should have been an ordinary day coming home from preschool turned into a moment that would make this kindergartener the face of one of the most controversial immigration enforcement operations in recent memory. Now, months after a federal judge ordered Liam and his father, Adrian Conejo Arias, released from detention, the federal government is fighting back. On Wednesday, the Justice Department filed a notice of appeal in federal court in Texas, challenging the January ruling that freed them. This appeal could potentially send the father and young son back to an immigration detention facility, reigniting a debate about the human cost of strict immigration enforcement policies. The case has become a symbol of the broader tensions surrounding immigration policy in America, particularly when children become caught in the machinery of enforcement actions designed for adults.

The Father’s Defiant Response and Government’s Justification

Adrian Conejo Arias, speaking through his attorney Danielle Molliver, delivered a defiant message in response to the government’s appeal: “The first time they came for us it was unjust. The second time they came for us is unjust. We are not giving into their fear.” Despite the uncertainty hanging over his family’s future, Conejo Arias took time to express gratitude for the outpouring of support they’ve received, saying, “Thank you to all those who continue to support and love us.” The family’s situation has indeed captured hearts around the world, with advocates rallying behind them as representatives of what many see as an overly aggressive approach to immigration enforcement that fails to consider the human elements involved, particularly when young children are affected.

The Department of Homeland Security, however, maintains that proper procedures were followed throughout the case. A spokesperson told CBS News that Conejo Arias and his son “received full due process and were issued a final order of removal on February 19.” The agency’s statement emphasized the current administration’s commitment to what it characterizes as restoring law and order to the immigration system: “The Trump administration is committed to restoring the rule of law and common sense to our immigration system, and will continue to fight for the arrest, detention, and removal of illegal aliens who have no right to be in this country.” This position represents the government’s view that immigration laws must be enforced consistently, regardless of individual circumstances that might generate public sympathy. The administration argues that making exceptions undermines the integrity of the immigration system and the rule of law itself.

A Judge’s Scathing Rebuke and What It Means

The government’s appeal targets a ruling by U.S. District Judge Fred Biery that was remarkable not just for its outcome but for its strongly worded criticism of the enforcement action that led to Liam’s detention. Judge Biery didn’t mince words, finding that the father and son’s constitutional rights had been violated and describing their detention as the product of a “perfidious lust for unbridled power.” Even more striking, the judge suggested the case had its “genesis in the ill-conceived and incompetently implemented government pursuit of daily deportation quotas, apparently even if it requires traumatizing children.” This language from a federal judge is extraordinary and speaks to how troubling he found the circumstances of this particular case.

The government’s appeal isn’t limited to simply challenging the release order itself. According to the filing obtained by CBS News, the appeal extends to “all opinions, rulings, findings, conclusions, judgments, and orders on which the grant of the Petition is based.” This comprehensive challenge takes the fight to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, known as one of the more conservative federal appellate courts in the country. If the government succeeds in its appeal, Liam and his father could find themselves back in immigration detention, potentially undoing months of what the family has tried to build as they’ve returned to something resembling normal life. The legal battle highlights a fundamental question about executive power in immigration enforcement: where should the line be drawn when enforcement actions directly impact young children who had no say in their immigration status?

The Trauma at Valley View Elementary and Beyond

The impact of Liam’s detention extended far beyond his immediate family, rippling through his school community at Valley View Elementary in a Minneapolis suburb. CBS News documented the situation at the school, where administrators faced the heartbreaking task of explaining to young children why their classmate had disappeared. At the time of the crackdown, an astounding 24 families at just this one elementary school had children or parents detained under Operation Metro Surge, the Minneapolis-area enforcement operation that targeted the community. Principal Jason Kuhlman spoke to CBS News in late January about his concerns for Liam’s wellbeing while in detention, describing the difficult conversations educators faced: “His friends notice that he’s not here. Then when it hit the media, they start seeing his face on TV. It’s like, how do you explain that? When you start missing someone out of your classroom. How do you have that conversation with a 5-year-old?”

Since Judge Biery’s release order, Liam has been able to return to his classroom, according to a spokesperson for the Columbia Heights School District who confirmed the child was back in school. The family has reportedly asked that Liam not be singled out from other students as he readjusts to normal life, hoping to provide him with as much stability as possible after the traumatic disruption. For educators and child development experts, cases like Liam’s raise serious concerns about the long-term psychological impact on children who experience detention or the fear of family separation. The classroom should be a place of learning and security, but for the children of Valley View Elementary and schools like it across the country, the reality of immigration enforcement has invaded that safe space, creating an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty that makes learning difficult and childhood itself feel precarious.

Disputed Accounts of What Happened That Day

The circumstances surrounding Liam’s initial detention became a source of significant controversy, with community members and government officials offering sharply different accounts of what transpired. Community advocates alleged that ICE agents used the five-year-old as “bait” to compel his mother to open the door of their home after agents had already detained his father. This characterization paints a picture of deliberate manipulation that put a kindergartener in the middle of an enforcement action. The viral photo of Liam standing outside his home, small and vulnerable among the adult agents, seemed to support the narrative that something had gone terribly wrong in how this operation was conducted.

The Department of Homeland Security, however, presented a very different version of events. Then-DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin responded to questions about the viral photo by explaining that Conejo Arias “fled on foot—abandoning his child. For the child’s safety, one of our ICE officers remained with the child while the other officers apprehended Conejo Arias.” According to the official statement, ICE officers made “multiple attempts to get the alleged mother who was inside the house to take custody of her child,” even assuring her she would not be taken into custody herself. The statement claimed the mother “refused to accept custody of the child” and that the father told officers “he wanted the child to remain with him.” This account suggests the agents were trying to protect the child’s welfare in a difficult situation created by the father’s actions. Airport surveillance video released in late March showed images of Liam and his father being escorted by federal agents to a Delta flight from Minneapolis to Texas following their January 20 detention, documenting the moment they were removed from Minnesota to a detention facility in another state.

The Ongoing Legal Battle and Uncertain Future

The legal fight for Liam and his father is far from over, with multiple proceedings happening simultaneously. In March, an immigration judge denied the family’s asylum claim, which left them eligible for deportation under current immigration law. Their attorneys are appealing that decision, hoping to find a legal pathway that would allow the family to remain in the United States. The asylum system is designed to provide protection to people who face persecution in their home countries, but proving an asylum claim can be extremely difficult, requiring extensive documentation and meeting specific legal standards that many legitimate refugees struggle to satisfy.

The government’s current appeal challenges a specific but crucial protection that Judge Biery’s order provided: if Liam and his father were to be re-detained, they would be entitled to a bond hearing. Bond hearings give detained immigrants the opportunity to argue before a judge that they should be released while their cases proceed, often by demonstrating they’re not flight risks or dangers to the community. Without this protection, detained immigrants can languish in facilities for months or even years while their cases wind through the system. For a five-year-old child, being held in an immigration detention facility—even with a parent—means missing school, being separated from friends and community, and living in an institutional setting rather than a home. The stakes of this appeal are therefore immense for this particular family, but the case also has broader implications for how immigration enforcement is conducted when young children are involved. As the case moves forward to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, advocates, legal experts, and ordinary citizens will be watching to see whether the courts determine that the government’s interest in enforcing immigration law outweighs the harm to a kindergartener who found himself at the center of a national controversy through no fault of his own.