Introduction
Immigration attorneys in Texas face a rapidly evolving legal landscape in 2025. This report provides a comprehensive overview of new federal immigration law changes and Texas-specific developments affecting deportation and removal defense, with a focus on San Antonio. It includes recent federal policy shifts, state enforcement trends, illustrative case examples, and a directory of key legal resources (nonprofits, legal aid groups, and private practices) available for deportation defense in the San Antonio area. Short, focused sections with clear headings allow for quick scanning of critical updates, and detailed citations are provided for further reference.
Federal Immigration Law Changes in 2025 (Deportation & Removal)
Expedited Removal Expansion: As of January 21, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) dramatically expanded “expedited removal” nationwide[1]. Previously, fast-track deportation without a court hearing was limited to individuals apprehended within 100 miles of the border who had been in the U.S. for 14 days or less[2]. Under the new policy, any undocumented person anywhere in the country who cannot prove at least two years of continuous U.S. presence may be summarily removed without seeing an immigration judge[3][4]. Even migrants who entered lawfully on parole programs can be targeted for expedited removal under this expansion[5]. This change poses urgent challenges for defense attorneys and clients: individuals must now carry evidence of their U.S. presence (e.g. dated records, mail, leases) to avoid being mistakenly treated as recent arrivals[6]. Those fearing persecution must assert their fear immediately upon arrest to trigger a credible fear interview, which is the only avenue to halt an expedited removal[7][8]. Attorneys should be prepared to prove clients’ residency duration quickly or seek emergency relief if a client is wrongly expeditiously removed.
Case in Point – Expedited Removal Pitfalls: In one Texas case, a long-time resident was unlawfully removed under expedited procedures despite living in the U.S. for over two years. In May 2023, local police (as part of a state border operation) arrested an asylum seeker who had been in Texas since 2021 and handed him to Border Patrol[9][10]. Federal agents ignored evidence of his 2+ years presence, rushed him through a cursory credible fear interview under a new asylum transit ban, and deported him within weeks[9][10]. This separated the man from his U.S. citizen fiancée and family, denying him any hearing. The case illustrates how aggressive enforcement can bypass due process – and underscores the need for defense attorneys to intervene immediately when clients with long U.S. ties are caught up in expedited removal. Strategies include swiftly contacting DHS officials, providing proof of residence, and, if removal occurs, filing motions to reopen or complaints with oversight agencies[9][10].
Mandatory Detention Expansion (Laken Riley Act): A major legislative change in 2025 is the enactment of the Laken Riley Act (S.5/H.R. 29) on January 29, 2025[11]. This new federal law vastly broadens mandatory detention of noncitizens and empowers states to pressure federal enforcement. Key provisions include:
- Expanded Mandatory Detention: The Act requires DHS/ICE to detain any undocumented immigrant who has been arrested for certain crimes – even before any conviction[12]. Under prior law, only specified serious convictions triggered mandatory ICE detention. Now, property offenses like theft or burglary, and even allegations of assault on an officer, mandate ICE detention upon arrest[12]. There are no exceptions for children or minors under this law[12]. In practice, an undocumented person in Texas charged with a minor theft offense must be taken into ICE custody and cannot be released on bond by an immigration judge, dramatically increasing the detained docket.
- State Lawsuits to Enforce Immigration: The Act grants state attorneys general unprecedented authority to sue the federal government over perceived lapses in enforcement[13][14]. States can seek injunctions if, for example, ICE releases a noncitizen from custody, if DHS doesn’t promptly detain someone with a removal order, or if DHS implements enforcement priorities that a state dislikes[13][14]. Essentially, states like Texas now have standing to challenge federal decisions not to detain or deport, representing a shift toward state influence in immigration policy[15][16]. Texas officials have already signaled eagerness to use these powers to oppose any relaxation of enforcement[17].
Defense Impact: The Laken Riley Act means far more clients will be in mandatory custody, unable to seek bond. Immigrants arrested for any crime (including minor nonviolent offenses) may be whisked into ICE detention that could last through the entire removal case. Defense attorneys must adjust strategies knowing release options are limited – for example, by pursuing prosecutorial discretion or deferred prosecution of minor charges to avoid triggering ICE detention. Attorneys should also be aware that if ICE does release a client (or declines to pursue a case), the State of Texas might sue, injecting federal court litigation into the case[13][14]. Close coordination with criminal defense counsel is vital: ensuring criminal charges are handled in a way that minimizes immigration consequences (or are resolved quickly) can mitigate mandatory detention exposure. Moreover, expect increased issuance of ICE detainers to local jails – the law requires ICE to issue a detainer and take custody whenever a jurisdiction reports an undocumented arrestee for a covered offense[18]. ICE acknowledged it may lack resources for the influx and might even have to release some detainees for space reasons[19], but the default will be holding as many individuals as possible.
Asylum & Humanitarian Relief Restrictions: The new administration has also moved to limit humanitarian relief and narrow defenses against removal:
- Asylum Limits and “Asylum Ban”: Following campaign promises to restrict asylum, the administration reintroduced strict barriers for asylum-seekers. A “transit ban” was implemented, denying asylum to many who traveled through third countries without seeking protection there[20]. In credible fear interviews, asylum officers are applying this regulation to quickly issue negative findings, as happened in the case above[21]. Immigration judges now face pressures to pretermit (dismiss) asylum applications deemed insufficient on their face, a practice revived from a stalled 2020 rule, meaning applicants must submit much more detailed asylum applications upfront to avoid summary denial. Attorneys should front-load evidence and legal arguments in asylum filings to prevent cases from being dismissed without a hearing.
- Use of the Alien Enemies Act: In a novel tactic, President Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to summarily remove certain groups of noncitizens. This centuries-old law (historically used during wartime) was repurposed in 2025 as a means to bypass normal immigration procedures for selected nationalities deemed security threats[22][23]. The administration attempted to deport individuals under this authority without full immigration court process. However, federal courts intervened: in April 2025, the Supreme Court ruled that noncitizens targeted under the Alien Enemies Act must have notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal, and a federal judge in Texas swiftly issued a temporary restraining order halting such removals for detainees at one Texas facility[24][22]. By May 2025, a Texas court ruled against the administration’s use of the Act[25]. For defense attorneys, this episode underscores that due process arguments remain powerful – even when faced with extraordinary executive claims. Advocates should stay alert for any unusual removal attempts under rarely used laws and be prepared to seek emergency relief in federal court.
- Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and DACA: Recent policies indicate tighter limits on humanitarian programs that offer deportation relief. The administration and Congress signaled unwillingness to extend or designate new TPS categories, and have taken steps to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. While litigation over DACA’s legality continues (and as of 2025 DACA renewals continue pending court outcomes), new applications remain closed. TPS for countries like Venezuela, Haiti, etc., which was expanded in 2023, is under scrutiny – extensions are uncertain and court challenges to TPS decisions are possible. Practitioners should track TPS registration deadlines and encourage eligible clients to file while available, and develop backup plans for DACA recipients who could lose status if court rulings or policy changes terminate DACA protections.
Enforcement Priorities & Prosecutorial Discretion: On Inauguration Day 2025, the Department of Justice and DHS rescinded the prior administration’s guidance that focused removal efforts on serious criminals and recent entrants. The new policy is “maximum enforcement” – essentially, every undocumented person is a priority for removal[26][27]. A January 21, 2025 memo from DOJ eliminated most prosecutorial discretion (PD) in immigration cases: “prosecutorial discretion is again limited to unusual facts and will likely be unavailable in most cases.”[28]. This means ICE trial attorneys and DHS officers are generally unwilling to agree to case closures, stipulations, or leniency except in truly exceptional circumstances. For defense counsel, tools like administrative closure, joint termination, or deferred action have effectively vanished for the time being[28]. Attorneys must be prepared to litigate cases fully on the merits, as the government will push every removal case forward regardless of equities.
In addition, DOJ and DHS launched surge enforcement initiatives: for example, Operation Take Back America began in March 2025, leveraging Organized Crime Task Forces to prosecute immigration-related offenses aggressively[29][30]. Federal prosecutors are charging more migrants with crimes such as illegal entry (8 U.S.C. §1325) and re-entry after removal (§1326), as well as smuggling or document fraud, in coordination with this initiative. The administration has also encouraged labeling of certain migrant groups as gang members or cartel associates (e.g. invoking MS-13 or Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua gang as blanket justifications for arrests)[31]. Innocent noncitizens may be falsely tarred as gang affiliates to deny bond or relief[32]. Defense attorneys should proactively contest any unfounded gang allegations – demanding the government’s evidence and, if none, moving to strike such charges – since these claims can severely prejudice an immigrant’s case or disqualify them from asylum and cancellation relief.
Case in Point – Mass Raid in San Antonio: The effects of these new enforcement priorities have been felt in San Antonio. In November 2025, the city experienced its largest immigration raid to date, with 150 community members detained in a single operation[33]. In that raid, San Antonio Police Department (SAPD) officers collaborated with ICE and federal task forces to conduct coordinated sweeps, allegedly targeting Venezuelan migrants suspected (often without proof) of gang ties to Tren de Aragua[33][31]. Local advocacy groups condemned the raid as “terrorizing our neighbors” and noted that law enforcement’s gang allegations were largely speculative[31][34]. Many of those arrested had no criminal records or verified gang involvement, and some criminal charges that were initially filed (in a similar prior raid in Hays County, TX) were later dropped for lack of evidence[34]. For attorneys, this case study highlights the importance of challenging dubious gang designations and coordinating with criminal defense attorneys. It may be necessary to request bond redeterminations or file habeas petitions if clients are detained based on overbroad enforcement actions. Also, San Antonio’s raid shows increased local-federal cooperation – a trend that requires defense attorneys to engage with community organizations and possibly city officials (who in this instance were called upon to hold oversight hearings on the raid)[35][36]. Knowing the facts behind large enforcement operations can help attorneys defend clients swept up in them by showing a context of racial or ethnic profiling or lack of individualized suspicion.
Procedural and Agency Updates: Several other federal changes in 2025 affect removal defense:
- USCIS NTA Policy: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced in February 2025 that it would resume and expand issuance of Notices to Appear (NTAs) when immigration benefit applications are denied[37][38]. Under this policy alert, any applicant without lawful status who is denied (e.g. an asylum applicant, family petition beneficiary, or even a U visa applicant if ultimately denied) will be referred to immigration court. Importantly, USCIS removed prior exceptions that protected certain groups from being referred – for instance, survivors of domestic violence (VAWA self-petitioners) or trafficking victims could now receive NTAs if their cases are denied[39][40]. The impact is a much larger removal caseload and the need for attorneys to counsel clients about NTA risks when filing any immigration application. By June 2025, USCIS reported issuing on average 1,840 NTAs per week, including hundreds of NTAs in asylum and TPS cases, representing a 2,811% increase in fraud-related NTAs compared to the prior administration[38][41]. This surge means more clients will land in removal proceedings as a byproduct of failed applications, requiring deportation defense even for those who initially sought affirmative relief.
- Detention Conditions and Vulnerable Populations: In May 2025, CBP rescinded guidelines that previously limited the detention of pregnant individuals and other medically vulnerable people[42][43]. Now, pregnant women, the elderly, and those with serious health issues no longer get special release consideration and may be held in custody during processing. Attorneys should be prepared to file humanitarian parole or release requests for at-risk detainees on a case-by-case basis, as the blanket policy of leniency is gone. Additionally, the DOJ quietly discontinued the National Qualified Representative Program (which had provided appointed counsel for detained immigrants with serious mental disorders who are deemed incompetent to represent themselves). This places a greater burden on pro bono networks to assist mentally incompetent respondents in removal proceedings, since the government will no longer guarantee them an attorney. San Antonio attorneys should be aware of this change and coordinate with nonprofit legal service providers if such cases arise in the local detention centers (e.g. at the South Texas ICE Processing Center in Pearsall, TX).
- Civil Fines for Deportation Orders: The administration has reintroduced the practice of levying civil fines on individuals with final removal orders who fail to depart. DHS is again issuing fines up to $799 per day for noncompliance with removal (a Trump-era practice that had been halted in 2021)[22]. While these fines are often administratively contested and were largely uncollected in the past, they serve as another pressure point on undocumented individuals. Attorneys might need to advise clients on responding to any fine notices (by requesting DHS to rescind them based on inability to pay or as a matter of discretion, as was successfully done in 2019–2020).
In summary, federal changes in 2025 have created a far harsher environment for anyone in removal proceedings. Every undocumented person in San Antonio must assume they are an enforcement priority, and defense lawyers must adapt by gathering proof of residency, avoiding minor criminal entanglements for clients, and fighting removals on all possible fronts (including federal court litigation when constitutional issues arise). The elimination of broad prosecutorial discretion means cases will likely go to full hearings, increasing the importance of thorough preparation and creative relief strategies.
Texas State & Local Developments in Immigration Enforcement (2025)
Texas State Laws and Enforcement Initiatives
State Criminalization of Immigration (Texas SB 4): In late 2023, Texas enacted a highly controversial law – Senate Bill 4 (3rd Special Session 2023) – that makes illegal entry a state crime in Texas[44][45]. Governor Greg Abbott signed this law on Dec. 18, 2023, aiming to give state and local police authority to arrest migrants for crossing the Rio Grande outside official ports of entry[44][46]. Under SB 4, a first-time offense of unauthorized entry is a Class B misdemeanor (up to 6 months in jail), and repeat offenses can be charged as a second-degree felony (2–20 years in prison)[47][48]. Crucially, the law would allow Texas magistrate judges to order deportation as part of the state criminal proceedings – effectively attempting to let state courts issue removal orders[49][50].
Current Status: SB 4 was immediately challenged in court as an unconstitutional intrusion into federal authority[51][49]. The Biden Justice Department sued to block it, and although the Trump administration (in 2025) dropped the federal challenge, immigrant rights groups continued the litigation[52][53]. A federal judge issued an injunction in February 2024 preventing the law from taking effect, and on July 4, 2025, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that injunction, finding the Texas law preempted by federal immigration law[54][53]. The court cited long-standing Supreme Court precedent that immigration enforcement is exclusively a federal power, and allowing Texas to prosecute border crossings would conflict with the federal system[53][55]. Texas has vowed to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court[55], but as of late 2025, SB 4 remains unenforceable by court order. For now, this means Texas police cannot charge people with the new state crime of illegal entry, nor can state judges attempt to deport them – those aspects are on hold[54][56].
Enforcement Trend: Even though SB 4 is stalled, its passage reflects Texas’s aggressive stance. The state simultaneously passed SB 3 (2023), dedicating $1.54 billion more to extend Texas’s own border wall and deploy state troopers for border security[57][44]. Texas also increased penalties for human smuggling (another SB 4 from an earlier session, raising smuggling sentences to a 10-year minimum)[58]. The message to practitioners is that Texas will continue to push the envelope: state troopers (DPS) and the Texas National Guard are deeply involved in immigration enforcement through Operation Lone Star and related initiatives, even as legal battles play out.
Operation Lone Star: Launched in 2021, Operation Lone Star is Texas’s state-run border enforcement program. By 2025 it remains active, with Texas DPS officers arresting migrants on state charges such as criminal trespass, human smuggling, or drug offenses near the border. These arrests often result from joint operations with Border Patrol, where state officers detain migrants on any available state charge, then hand them to federal custody if possible. One outcome of Operation Lone Star’s collaboration was highlighted in the NIJC complaint: local police in Kinney County, TX (participating in the operation) pulled over migrants at gunpoint and detained them until Border Patrol arrived, leading to expedited deportation of asylum seekers without due process[10][59]. Attorneys in San Antonio may see clients who were first arrested by state authorities under this program and then transferred to ICE. While many Operation Lone Star arrests have been for misdemeanor trespassing on private ranchland, Texas built a dedicated state jail docket (with converted facilities) to prosecute hundreds of such cases, sometimes resulting in time-served sentences and then immediate ICE pickup. Defense attorneys should inquire about the circumstances of a client’s arrest – if a client was initially caught by Texas DPS under Operation Lone Star, there may be parallel state court records or potential Fourth Amendment issues (e.g. pretextual vehicle stops or profiling) that could be relevant in immigration court (for suppression motions or simply to explain any delays in custody transfer).
State vs. Federal Tensions: Texas’s efforts have led to clashes with the federal government beyond SB 4. In mid-2023, Texas installed a floating buoy barrier in the Rio Grande to block migrant crossings, prompting a DOJ lawsuit on environmental and humanitarian grounds. Federal courts ordered the removal of the buoys, but Texas appealed. By 2025, these legal fights continue, emblematic of Texas’s stance of “defending itself” against what state leaders call federal inaction[60]. Moreover, Texas leaders have encouraged local sheriffs and police to fully cooperate with ICE detainer requests and 287(g) agreements (formal partnerships deputizing local officers as immigration agents). Since 2017, Texas law (the earlier SB 4 (2017) anti-“sanctuary city” law) actually requires local jurisdictions to honor ICE detainers and bars policies that would limit cooperation. Thus, San Antonio’s local law enforcement is legally compelled to comply with ICE requests to hold or notify upon release any detainee who is a suspected immigration violator.
For immigration attorneys in San Antonio, this means that unlike some cities in other states, local jails (e.g. the Bexar County jail) will routinely inform ICE about foreign-born inmates and hold them 48 hours for ICE pickup if a detainer is issued. The close state-local collaboration is further evidenced by events like the November 2025 raid in San Antonio, where SAPD officers actively partnered with ICE and federal agents in a mass enforcement action[33][31]. This represents a shift from the past, when San Antonio tended to limit police involvement in immigration except as required by law. Attorneys should be aware that any client who is arrested by San Antonio police for a local offense will likely come to ICE’s attention immediately due to Texas’s laws, and rapid ICE intervention (even at court appearances) is now a reality.
San Antonio Area Enforcement Trends
ICE Activity at Immigration Court and Local Facilities: San Antonio is home to an immigration court (the San Antonio Immigration Court) and not far from multiple ICE detention centers (Pearsall, Karnes County, Dilley). In 2025, advocates observed that ICE has been conducting arrests at the San Antonio immigration court itself, a practice that sows fear in the community. According to testimony to the Bexar County Commissioners, ICE targeted adults and children who were attending their immigration court hearings in San Antonio, arresting some on-site[61]. This is a striking development – children with pending cases (likely unaccompanied minors who turned 18 or those with in absentia orders) being arrested at court – and indicates ICE’s escalated posture. Defense attorneys should caution clients that any visit to ICE offices or court could risk detention if there are any outstanding issues (like prior removal orders or criminal warrants). It may be advisable to accompany clients to check-ins and hearings and to have emergency plans (e.g. childcare arrangements, phone trees with family) in case a client is unexpectedly detained.
Local Legal Resistance: On the positive side, San Antonio and Bexar County have bolstered support for immigrant defendants. In 2022, a coalition of advocacy groups (SA Stands) successfully lobbied for a county-funded Immigrant Legal Defense Fund (ILDF) to provide free deportation defense for low-income residents facing removal[62][63]. The Bexar County Commissioners Court initially approved \$1 million for this fund[62] and, by May 2024, contracted two nonprofits – RAICES and American Gateways – to handle cases under the program[62][64]. The ILDF launched in summer 2024 and is now operational, covering representation for detained and non-detained cases in the San Antonio immigration court[65][66]. In December 2025, the County renewed funding (over \$500,000) to continue these services into 2026[67][68]. Despite some political opposition, local officials recognized that only about 15% of Bexar County residents facing deportation had legal representation prior to the ILDF[66], and that counsel can dramatically improve outcomes. For attorneys in private practice, the ILDF means there is a strong nonprofit presence in San Antonio’s immigration court – complex cases or indigent individuals may be represented by ILDF-funded lawyers. Coordination and collegial relationships between the private bar and nonprofit attorneys will help ensure no one “falls through the cracks” unrepresented. The ILDF does not impose strict exclusions based on criminal history (the coalition explicitly advocated that services remain available regardless of prior offenses)[69], so even clients with criminal issues may get help. However, capacity is still limited relative to need, and many individuals will continue to rely on private attorneys or pro bono volunteers.
Community and City Support: The City of San Antonio also has supported immigrant legal services, albeit at smaller levels. San Antonio provides some funding to nonprofits for legal services (in 2024, the city council considered additional grants for immigrant legal aid)[70]. Moreover, San Antonio operates a Migrant Resource Center (MRC) that helps asylum-seekers arriving from the border with basic needs and travel coordination – while not legal defense, this resource has been crucial during the influx of migrants released from custody. In 2025, debates continued in City Council about funding the MRC and ensuring it does not conflict with state officials (some of whom have criticized any assistance to migrants).
In terms of enforcement stance, San Antonio’s local government tends to be immigrant-friendly. Mayor Ron Nirenberg has been part of a “Welcoming Cities” initiative, and the city police had policies (prior to the 2017 state law) not to inquire about immigration status of crime victims or witnesses. Those policies are essentially overridden by state law SB 4 (2017), but SAPD still emphasizes that its primary role is public safety, not immigration. The large November 2025 raid was somewhat unusual for SAPD; community backlash and calls for oversight suggest that San Antonio officials may push back on being used regularly in federal immigration operations[36]. Attorneys can cite such community concerns when litigating cases that result from heavy-handed raids, possibly influencing discretionary decisions by judges or prosecutors.
Overall, Texas’s enforcement environment in 2025 is extremely strict, but San Antonio’s local institutions are striving to mitigate harm through legal defense funding and community advocacy. Immigration attorneys must navigate the tension between state-level crackdowns and local support measures, leveraging every available resource to defend clients.
Case Studies: How Recent Changes Affect Defense Strategies
To illustrate the practical effects of these 2025 developments, this section presents brief case studies and examples:
- Expedited Removal & Evidence of Presence: Scenario: A San Antonio father of two U.S. citizens is arrested by ICE at home in mid-2025. Agents assert he entered without inspection and cannot prove he’s been here 2 years, so they initiate expedited removal. Defense Response: His attorney springs into action, gathering proof (lease agreements, medical records, school records for his children) showing he has lived in Texas since 2019. By presenting these documents immediately to ICE and the local Field Office Director, the attorney gets ICE to halt the expedited removal, converting the case to regular removal proceedings. Lesson: In the era of expanded expedited removal, defense counsel must be ready to demonstrate continuous presence on short notice. Keeping copies of key documents in a “emergency packet” for clients is a new best practice. Had the evidence not been quickly produced, the client might have been removed without a hearing. The NILC guidance in 2025 urges community members to carry evidence of 2+ years’ residence for exactly this reason[71][6]. Attorneys should likewise instruct clients on maintaining such proof and be prepared to intervene with ICE before a summary removal is executed.
- Stipulated Removal (Rapid “Voluntary” Deportations): Scenario: An asylum seeker detained at the South Texas detention center is given a “Stipulation to Removal” form by ICE in spring 2025. The form is already filled out with his personal information and states that he agrees to waive his hearing and be removed. An ICE officer pressures him, saying “if you don’t sign, you’ll sit in jail for months”[72][73]. Defense Response: The detainee fortunately had a family member contact a legal nonprofit, which assigned him an attorney. The attorney counsels him not to sign anything waiving his rights. For those who have signed, the attorney can file a motion to withdraw the stipulation, arguing it was signed under duress[74][75]. Lesson: In 2025 ICE increasingly used stipulated removal agreements to clear cases quickly[76][77]. Defense attorneys must ensure clients understand that no one is required to sign such an agreement and that by signing they forfeit any relief eligibility[72][73]. If a client has mistakenly signed a stipulation, time is of the essence – the lawyer should move to retract it before an immigration judge enters the removal order. This practice changes defense strategy: lawyers must now routinely ask detainees, “Did ICE give you any papers to sign?” and be ready to combat coercive tactics. Training materials from NIPNLG (June 2025) explain how stipulations work and how to challenge them[73][78], which can guide practitioners in protecting due process.
- Mandatory Detention & Bond Strategy: Scenario: A lawful permanent resident (green card holder) in San Antonio is arrested in 2025 for a shoplifting offense (theft under $100). Even though it’s a minor charge, ICE places him in removal proceedings for the conviction and invokes the Laken Riley Act to argue he must be mandatorily detained as someone “arrested for a property offense”[79][80]. The immigration judge states she has no jurisdiction to offer bond due to the new law. Defense Response: The attorney contests ICE’s custody stance by filing a habeas petition in federal court, arguing that indefinite mandatory detention for a petty offense raises due process issues (especially since the criminal case resulted in just a fine). Concurrently, the attorney negotiates with ICE for a possible release on order of supervision, highlighting the client’s equities. If these fail, the attorney accelerates the client’s relief application (Cancellation of Removal for LPRs) to get a conclusion as fast as possible, since no bond is available. Lesson: Mandatory detention now covers far more cases – defense counsel must be prepared with alternate strategies to secure release. This can include seeking release from ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) via administrative channels or filing habeas actions for custody review after a certain time in detention. Additionally, collaborating with criminal attorneys to reduce charges (e.g., getting a shoplifting charged as a citation or dismissed) could avoid triggering the federal detention mandate in the first place. Under the Laken Riley Act, even charges without conviction can equal mandatory ICE custody[11][12], so early intervention at the criminal case stage is key.
- San Antonio Raid & Gang Allegations: Scenario: A 20-year-old asylum seeker from Venezuela in San Antonio is swept up in the November 2025 raid. He has no criminal history, but ICE alleges he’s associated with “Tren de Aragua,” pointing to a tattoo that is actually unrelated. ICE charges him as a danger to the community and opposes bond, citing the ongoing DOJ task force on gangs. Defense Response: The attorney gathers evidence: letters from family, proof of employment, and an expert affidavit on Venezuelan gang tattoos clarifying that the client’s tattoo is not gang-related. At the bond hearing, the attorney rebuts ICE’s allegations as “speculation” and guilt by association, using the fact that even local officials admitted many raid allegations were unproven[31][34]. The immigration judge, presented with this, grants a reasonable bond. In removal proceedings, the attorney will emphasize that gang accusations require proof, and in asylum will address and neutralize any government claims of gang affiliation. Lesson: Mass enforcement actions can lead to pattern-based accusations (e.g., everyone from X country is in Y gang). Defense lawyers must individually differentiate their clients and demand the government produce credible evidence. Bond hearings in this climate require thorough preparation to humanize the client and discredit generalized claims. Community outrage and media reports can actually be helpful: in this case, statements from local advocacy groups and news that prior similar raids had all charges dropped[34] buttressed the argument that the client was likely innocent. Attorneys should not hesitate to reference such broader context when relevant to a client’s danger/risk assessment.
Each of these examples underscores how 2025’s changes necessitate aggressive, informed defense strategies. From carrying evidence of residence to fighting overbroad allegations, immigration attorneys must be both creative and proactive. Sharing information among the legal community (for instance, about ICE’s new tactics or outcomes of high-profile enforcement actions) is more important than ever so that all defenders are equipped to handle the novel challenges arising in Texas and beyond.
Key Legal Resources in San Antonio for Deportation Defense
San Antonio has a network of organizations and professionals that support immigrants facing removal. Below is a list of key resources – including nonprofits, legal aid groups, and private practices – along with a summary of their services:
- RAICES (Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services): A major Texas-based nonprofit with deep roots in San Antonio. RAICES is the largest immigration legal services provider in Texas, offering free or low-cost representation in removal proceedings as well as affirmative cases[81][82]. In San Antonio, RAICES attorneys handle detained and non-detained deportation defense, assist with asylum claims, family-based immigration, DACA, and more[83]. They also operate the RAICES Bond Fund, which helps pay immigration bonds to release detainees[84]. With decades of experience (founded in 1986 in San Antonio), RAICES has a robust removal defense team and is a cornerstone resource for the immigrant community.
- American Gateways: A nonprofit serving Central Texas with offices in Austin and San Antonio, American Gateways provides direct representation in removal defense and humanitarian cases[85]. They focus on immigrants in the San Antonio Immigration Court, including asylum seekers, families, and long-term residents fighting deportation. American Gateways is a partner in Bexar County’s ILDF program, meaning it receives county funds to represent local residents facing deportation[86][67]. They also run a legal hotline for individuals in removal (in San Antonio, call 210-864-2917 as advertised on their site[87]). This organization is a go-to referral for low-income immigrants who need high-quality legal advocacy in immigration court.
- Catholic Charities of San Antonio – Immigration Services: Part of the charitable arm of the Catholic Archdiocese, this program offers legal assistance on a sliding-scale fee basis for immigration cases. Catholic Charities in Texas have offices in many cities (e.g., Houston, Dallas, Fort Worth), and San Antonio’s branch similarly provides representation in deportation proceedings, especially for those who may not qualify for free services but cannot afford private attorney rates[88][89]. They often help with family-based cases, Cancellation of Removal applications, and relief for victims of crime (like VAWA, U visas) who are in removal. The organization may also coordinate “Know Your Rights” workshops and citizenship clinics, contributing to community education as a preventative measure.
- Bexar County Immigrant Legal Defense Fund (ILDF): Rather than an organization, this is a funding initiative, but it effectively acts as a resource by covering attorney fees for deportation cases. Through ILDF, local nonprofits (currently RAICES and American Gateways) are funded to take on cases of Bexar County residents in deportation[62][63]. Immigrants do not apply to the county directly; instead, they contact those nonprofits (RAICES or American Gateways), which then determine eligibility for representation under the ILDF program. The ILDF prioritizes those who cannot afford counsel and is intended to improve due process by boosting representation rates[66]. Attorneys should be aware of ILDF in case they encounter individuals who qualify – it might be appropriate to refer certain clients to these funded services, for instance, if a private client can no longer pay and the nonprofits have capacity to take over under ILDF.
- Texas RioGrande Legal Aid (TRLA): TRLA is a large legal aid organization covering South Texas. While known for civil legal services, TRLA also has an immigration team that includes deportation defense, particularly for vulnerable populations. TRLA represents detained immigrants at some South Texas facilities and handles federal litigation challenges. They have offices in nearby cities (like Harlingen, Corpus Christi, and border areas) and can be a resource for San Antonio attorneys if a case overlaps with their service region (e.g. a San Antonio resident detained in Laredo might have access to TRLA’s representation). TRLA’s presence ensures that many indigent individuals in the border detention centers have counsel[90][91]. San Antonio lawyers might collaborate with TRLA on strategies or refer clients who live at the intersection of immigration and other legal issues (e.g., labor or housing issues for immigrants).
- ProBAR – South Texas Pro Bono Asylum Representation Project: Based in the Rio Grande Valley (Harlingen), ProBAR provides legal orientations and representation primarily for detainees in the Port Isabel and Rio Grande Valley area. It’s not in San Antonio, but noteworthy as part of the Texas removal defense support system[92][93]. Some asylum seekers pass through these detention facilities before moving to San Antonio. ProBAR’s guides and staff are a resource if an attorney needs expertise on credible fear interviews or conditions in those facilities.
- St. Mary’s University School of Law – Immigration & Human Rights Clinic: Located in San Antonio, the St. Mary’s Law Clinic offers free legal representation to some immigrants facing removal, handled by law students under faculty supervision[94]. They often take cases that have educational value, such as asylum claims, humanitarian cases, or appeals. Law school clinics can be a great resource for low-income individuals who might not get into a nonprofit’s caseload. The St. Mary’s clinic also contributes amicus briefs and legal research on immigration issues affecting the local community. Attorneys could consider referring clients with limited means to the clinic at the start of each semester (when clinics typically select new cases), and they may find opportunities to collaborate or mentor clinic students as well.
- Private Immigration Law Firms (San Antonio): San Antonio has a strong community of private immigration attorneys, including several Board-Certified specialists in Immigration and Nationality Law. For example, the firm De Mott, McChesney, Curtright & Armendáriz (DMCA) is a long-standing local firm (established in 1976) with offices in San Antonio and other Texas cities. DMCA’s team includes five attorneys certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization in immigration law[95][96]. They provide comprehensive immigration services, from family visas to litigation and deportation defense, and are experienced with criminal-immigration (“crim-imm”) crossover issues[97]. Another example is Gireud & Hobbs (Alamo Law Group), a San Antonio firm focusing on deportation defense among other immigration matters[98]. These private practitioners handle everything from bond hearings to immigration appeals, and often take on complex cases. Many are members of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) Texas Chapter, through which they share updates and strategies. San Antonio attorneys regularly coordinate via AILA listservs and local roundtables – joining these networks is highly recommended for staying current on fast-breaking changes (like new ICE office policies or court procedures). The State Bar of Texas Lawyer Referral Service can help connect individuals with reputable private immigration lawyers if they don’t know where to start[99].
- Rapid Response and Community Hotlines: San Antonio immigrants can also turn to community-based initiatives such as the SA Stands Coalition and its partners for emergency support. SA Stands operates a Deportation Defense Hotline (“Línea de Defensa Comunitaria”) for families to call if a loved one is detained[100]. They mobilize volunteer attorneys or DOJ-accredited reps to give immediate guidance. Additionally, organizations like Texas Organizing Project and the ACLU of Texas have local chapters that inform the community of rights during ICE encounters and sometimes accompany people to check-ins or protests. While not providing direct legal representation, these community resources are integral in alerting attorneys to raids or ICE activity in real time and connecting affected individuals with legal help quickly.
In summary, San Antonio’s immigration defense ecosystem includes well-established nonprofits (RAICES, American Gateways) for low-cost or free services, legal aid programs (ILDF, TRLA) that bolster representation for the indigent, an academic clinic training new lawyers, and a cadre of experienced private attorneys for those who can hire counsel or need specialized expertise. A successful deportation defense often involves tapping multiple resources – for instance, a private attorney might work with RAICES to find a bond for a detained client, or a nonprofit attorney might refer a complex federal court issue to an experienced private litigator. By collaborating across this network, the San Antonio immigration bar can more effectively respond to the challenging new laws and enforcement actions we’ve outlined.
Sources:
- National Immigration Law Center – “Know Your Rights: Expedited Removal Expansion”, Jan. 24, 2025[1][2].
- National Immigrant Justice Center – complaint re: unlawful expedited removal (Mar. 2024)[9][10].
- New York City Bar Association – Report on Trump Administration’s 2025 Immigration Law Changes (Oct. 10, 2025)[28][38].
- Reuters – “Texas may not enforce migrant arrest law, appeals court rules”, July 4, 2025[53][55].
- Texas Tribune – “Gov. Greg Abbott signs bill making illegal immigration a state crime”, Dec. 18, 2023[45][49].
- NACo County News – “President Trump signs Laken Riley Act into law”, Feb. 5, 2025[11][12].
- ACLU Press Release – “Federal Court in Texas Blocks Removals Under Alien Enemies Act”, Apr. 9, 2025[22][23].
- SA Stands Coalition – “150 Community Members Detained in San Antonio Immigration Raid”, Nov. 19, 2025[33][31].
- Texas Public Radio – “County approves funding for migrant legal services in San Antonio”, Dec. 17, 2025[67][61].
- SA Stands – “Immigrant Legal Defense Fund Victory in Bexar County” update, Dec. 23, 2024[62][66].
- Bailey & Galyen Law Firm – “Resources for Immigrants in Texas Facing Deportation”, Nov. 7, 2025[101][85].
- De Mott, Curtright & Armendáriz (DMCA) – Firm Overview and Services[95][96].
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [71] Know Your Rights: Expedited Removal Expansion – NILC
https://www.nilc.org/resources/know-your-rights-expedited-removal-expansion/
[9] [10] [20] [21] [59] immigrantjustice.org
[11] [12] [15] [16] [18] [19] President Trump signs Laken Riley Act into law | National Association of Counties
https://www.naco.org/news/president-trump-signs-laken-riley-act-law
[13] [14] [79] [80] S.5 – 119th Congress (2025-2026): Laken Riley Act | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/5
[17] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] Texas may not enforce migrant arrest law, US appeals court rules | Reuters
[22] [23] [24] [25] Federal Court in Texas Temporarily Blocks Removals Under Alien Enemies Act | American Civil Liberties Union
[26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [32] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] nycbar.org
https://www.nycbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/20221419-TrumpAdminChangesImmigrationLaw.pdf
[31] [33] [34] [35] [36] 150 Community Members Detained in San Antonio Immigration Raid: SA Stands Calls for Transparency – SA Stands
https://sastands.info/san-antonio-immigration-raid/
[44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [57] [58] [60] Texas governor signs bill making illegal immigration a state crime
[61] [67] [68] [86] County approves funding for migrant legal services in San Antonio area | TPR
[62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [69] IMMIGRANT LEGAL DEFENSE FUND – SA Stands
https://sastands.info/legalfund/
[70] ilrc.org
https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/2024-12/ILDF%20in%20Texas%20Community%20Alert.pdf
[72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] nipnlg.org
https://nipnlg.org/sites/default/files/2025-07/2025_NIPNLG-ICE-stipulations.pdf
[81] Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services …
[82] Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services …
[83] Legal Services – RAICES
[84] [85] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [99] [101] Deportation Resources for Immigrants in Texas – Bailey & Galyen Attorneys at Law
[87] Get Help | AMERICAN GATEWAYS
https://www.americangateways.org/get-help
[95] [96] [97] DMCA Immigration Attorney | San Antonio – Houston – Austin – Dallas
[98] Deportation Lawyer San Antonio | Texas Deportation Defense Attorney
https://alamolawgroup.com/deportation-defense/
[100] American Gateways – San Antonio Office – Texas Law Help
https://texaslawhelp.org/directory/american-gateways-san-antonio-office
