Washington, DC/--°
Updating
Subscribe free
National News

A Trump-appointed judge says ICE agents lied, falsified records and probably perjured themselves in a Bronx arrest gone wrong

U.S. District Judge Gary R. Brown, appointed by President Trump, issued a 28-page rebuke of ICE after agents wrongly arrested two men in the Bronx, including a U.S. citizen, then fabricated paperwork to cover it up. The ruling gives DHS 21 days to respond or face possible contempt.

A federal judge that President Trump himself put on the bench has issued one of the starkest judicial rebukes of his administration's immigration enforcement to date, finding that ICE agents in New York City lied under oath, fabricated official documents, and probably committed perjury to conceal a pair of unlawful arrests in the Bronx.

U.S. District Judge Gary R. Brown issued the findings on Monday, October 5, 2026, in the case of Angel Jesus Almonte, who was arrested without a warrant during a May 6 ICE operation targeting two other men. The same team also arrested Jeury Concepcion, a U.S. citizen who suffered head injuries requiring stitches.

In a scathing 28-page ruling, Brown condemned the agency's tactics when it mistakenly arrested the two Hispanic men in New York City in May, finding that ICE had "falsified official records trying to conceal" its "illegal actions."

The decision lands at a politically delicate moment. Brown sits on the Eastern District of New York. The Senate confirmed him by voice vote in December 2019 after Trump nominated him. That makes the rebuke harder for the administration to dismiss as the work of a hostile Democratic appointee.

What the judge actually found

Almonte was six feet tall and weighed 180 pounds, while the man agents claimed to have confused him with was 5-foot-7 and 110 pounds. The ICE team leader acknowledged that photographs made it "very easy to see they're two different people."

The physical mismatch is one reason Brown rejected the mistaken-identity defense outright. After agents realized Almonte was not their target, ICE continued to detain him and later produced an administrative arrest warrant. Brown found that warrant contained false statements about database searches and biometric confirmation purportedly used to establish Almonte's immigration status, and referred to the document as a "fraudulent arrest warrant."

It got worse. The judge accused the agents of offering "apparently perjurious testimony" that they had witnessed Almonte engaging in drug deals before his arrest, allegations he said bore "all the hallmarks of coordinated fabrication." No drugs, cash, or drug paraphernalia were found on Almonte.

The second man hurt that day fared no better. Minutes after Almonte's arrest, the same ICE team encountered Concepcion. Video showed a masked agent running toward the U.S. citizen with a gun drawn before officers took him into custody. Concepcion suffered head injuries that required stitches.

What the court is demanding now

Brown provisionally granted Almonte's habeas petition and ordered the government to respond within 21 days with the steps it intends to take following the court's findings. The judge said the response could determine whether the court considers sanctions, referrals, or contempt proceedings.

In Monday's ruling, Brown also ordered ICE to explain what disciplinary procedures it would hand down to the agents and any steps it plans to undertake to prevent similar incidents in the future. The 21-day clock started October 5, meaning the government's deadline falls in late October, squarely in the final stretch before November midterms.

Brown is not new to clashing with ICE. In December 2025, he issued a ruling holding that ICE was keeping immigrants in a Central Islip holding room "inhumanely and unlawfully" and stated that "the evidence presented to this court, which has been largely unrebutted, demonstrates that ICE has been deploying its 'holding rooms' in a manner that shocks the conscience." In a December 23 letter in response, the Department of Homeland Security pledged to no longer hold immigrants in the facility overnight.

ICE and DHS had not publicly responded to the October 5 ruling as of Thursday. The New York Times, which first reported the ruling in depth, noted the case was brought as a habeas corpus petition.

Washington context: a pattern the courts are tracking

The ruling arrives as federal courts across the country are reviewing ICE conduct with growing intensity. A DOJ spokesperson told Axios that the department has filed more than 200 denaturalization complaints since the Trump administration made denaturalization a priority, and remains on track to meet its objective of 250 cases by the end of October. That campaign, which the administration has framed as a fraud-enforcement push, is running in parallel with field operations that judges in at least two districts have now found to be procedurally deficient.

The political geometry is uncomfortable for the White House. A judge it seated is telling a court of record that agents under the control of Trump's DHS fabricated warrants and lied on the stand. The ruling does not touch immigration policy directly; it is a finding of fact about how agents behaved in a specific Bronx stairwell on a single May afternoon. But Brown's language, "coordinated fabrication," is the kind of phrase that lands in congressional oversight letters and inspector general referrals.

On the same docket: 39 states press the Supreme Court on prediction markets

Separately, a major federalism fight took shape Wednesday at the Supreme Court. A coalition of 39 states and the District of Columbia urged the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve a circuit split over the regulation of prediction markets like Kalshi, saying the industry's "aggressive theory of preemption" threatens states' sovereignty and ability to protect their residents.

The attorneys general, led by Ohio Attorney General Andrew Wilson, submitted their amicus brief asking the court to take on the case and overturn the Third Circuit's decision. The case is captioned Flaherty v. KalshiEX and docketed as No. 26-299.

The coalition is striking for its breadth. The states whose attorneys general did not sign were Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Montana, North Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Washington. Out of those states, all but Washington have a Republican attorney general. In other words, the brief is not a Democratic operation; it includes Republican attorneys general putting themselves at odds with a Trump administration that has sided with Kalshi and the CFTC.

That puts a broad swath of Republican states at odds with the Trump administration. The president has publicly called for the CFTC to regulate prediction markets. In an amicus brief also filed this week, the National Football League argues sports prediction contracts are effectively gambling, not financial swaps that should be regulated exclusively by the federal government as Kalshi has consistently argued in court.

The circuit split is real. The split reaches the definition of a swap under the Commodity Exchange Act. The Third Circuit places sports contracts inside the definition, and the Ninth and Sixth Circuits place them outside. Ohio's brief was one of four amicus filings lodged in the case between October 2 and October 7, 2026. Kalshi's own response to the petition is not due until November 9, after the court granted the company a seven-week extension.

The International Association of Gaming Regulators and the North American Gaming Regulators Association submitted a joint amicus brief on October 2 in support of New Jersey's petition, asking the court to determine whether sports-related event contracts listed on CFTC-regulated exchanges fall outside the reach of state gambling laws.

The NFL says that on the first Sunday of the season, football accounted for $1.8 billion in prediction markets trading, more than half the total volume. That commercial scale is part of why the coalition argues the court cannot wait.

What to Watch

  • DHS response deadline, late October. Judge Brown's 21-day clock expires before Election Day. Whether DHS offers disciplinary commitments, contests the findings, or says nothing will determine whether Brown moves to contempt proceedings against agency officials in the weeks immediately before November voting.
  • Congressional oversight. Judiciary Committee members on both sides have previously used individual ICE-conduct rulings as the basis for oversight letters and subpoenas. Brown's language, specifically his finding of probable perjury, is more severe than prior cases and is likely to prompt formal inquiries.
  • Supreme Court conference on Flaherty v. KalshiEX. The court is weighing whether to grant New Jersey's petition. Kalshi's response is not due until November 9. A decision to grant or deny certiorari will almost certainly come in the weeks after that deadline, setting the table for the term's biggest federalism fight.
  • The midterm overlay. Both stories drop with less than 30 days until Election Day. A federal judge finding that ICE agents wrote a fraudulent warrant is the kind of fact that opposition researchers on either side can use, and prediction markets, given their political-contract volume, will face renewed scrutiny from state gaming regulators who now have 39 attorney general signatures behind them.

Sources

Latest from Washington DC Magazine

More from National News