(MCCOOK, NEBRASKA) — Two new lawsuits filed in early 2026 accuse the McCook ICE Regional Detention Center of denying timely bond hearings and limiting detainees’ access to counsel, prompting questions about due process, court oversight, and the country’s harsh detention practices.
Section 1: Overview and context of the McCook ICE Regional Detention Center
McCook, Nebraska now sits on a key seam in the United States immigration detention system. The McCook ICE Regional Detention Center holds immigrants in ICE custody while their removal cases move forward in federal immigration courts.
Many detainees arrive by transfer, sometimes far from where they were first arrested or where their lawyers and family live. Local residents have also given the site a nickname: the “Cornhusker Clink.” The label reflects how quickly the facility became tied to a national debate over detention and court access.
Facility history matters here. The McCook facility was converted from a Nebraska state Work Ethic Camp into a federal immigration detention site in late 2025. The arrangement links state corrections infrastructure with federal immigration enforcement.
That link is central to the lawsuits now testing how detention decisions get reviewed, and how people in custody communicate with lawyers. Distance is part of the dispute: remote placement can mean fewer in-person attorney visits, longer travel times for families, and more reliance on phones or video systems that may be limited by schedules and staffing.
Those practical barriers become legal barriers when court deadlines are tight. Timing is everything.
Section 2: Lawsuits and parties
Two separate federal cases target different parts of the same system: how ICE detains people, and whether courts can force prompt, individualized review.
Semere Gherezgiher v. Noem was filed February 3, 2026. Semere Gherezgiher is described as a 32-year-old Eritrean man who left Eritrea in 2016 to avoid forced military conscription. The suit argues that he is being held in “indefinite detention.”
“indefinite” does not always mean forever. It can mean detention with no clear end date, no reliable release path, and no workable timeline for removal. The requested remedy is court-ordered relief that functions like a reset button on unlawful custody.
Readers often hear this described as habeas-style relief, which is a request for a judge to order the government to justify detention and, if needed, fix it. That differs from a standard immigration court bond process, which is usually handled inside the immigration court system rather than in federal district court.
Chang v. Noem was filed January 26, 2026. Carlos Chang is described as a Guatemalan citizen who lived in the United States for more than 20 years before detention in December 2025. This case attacks an ICE detention approach the suit describes as requiring detention for nearly all people facing deportation.
The core claim is that the policy blocks individualized determination—a person-by-person decision about whether detention is necessary, or whether release with conditions could still ensure court appearances and community safety.
Definitions
- Bond hearing: A hearing where an immigration judge decides if a detainee can be released while the case continues, often after weighing flight risk and danger concerns.
- Mandatory detention: A legal category where Congress requires detention for certain people, typically tied to specific grounds in the Immigration and Nationality Act.
- Individualized determination: A tailored decision based on a person’s facts, rather than a one-size rule.
- Habeas-style relief vs. immigration court bond: Habeas-style relief is sought in federal court to challenge unlawful custody. Immigration court bond is a process inside removal proceedings.
Timing matters because federal court orders, transfers, and policy updates can change access to hearings quickly. It also matters because prolonged detention can become harder to defend in court as weeks and months pass without individualized review.
Table 2: Timeline of filings and rulings
| Date | Event | Implication |
|---|---|---|
| October 27, 2025 | Jim Pillen publicly defended the facility conversion agreement with DHS | Framed the project as state-federal cooperation and a public-safety measure |
| October 31, 2025 | Tricia McLaughlin issued a statement on detention access claims | Set a baseline government position on basic conditions and communication access |
| January 26, 2026 | Chang v. Noem filed | Put the detention-for-nearly-all approach and individualized bond hearings at issue |
| February 2, 2026 | Federal court entered a temporary restraining order restoring unannounced congressional oversight visits | Court oversight tied directly to allegations like lack of access to counsel and shackling |
| February 2, 2026 | ICE published a detention management statement | Emphasized limited resources, mandatory detention categories, and presence at proceedings |
| February 3, 2026 | Semere Gherezgiher v. Noem filed | Raised “indefinite detention” and due process concerns in the McCook facility context |
Section 3: Official statements and quotes
ICE has publicly described detention as a tool it uses selectively. In a February 2, 2026 detention management statement, ICE said it uses limited detention resources to ensure people appear for immigration proceedings and to hold those subject to mandatory detention under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
That position matters because the lawsuits claim the real-world practice functions more like a default rule than a selective one. DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin has also pushed back on claims about restricted access.
In a statement dated October 31, 2025, she said: “All detainees are provided with 3 meals a day, water, and have access to phones to communicate with their family members and lawyers.” Operationally, those assurances often refer to set meal service, access to potable water, and scheduled phone systems.
The lawsuits, however, focus on whether phone access is private, timely, and realistic for attorney-client communication. Jim Pillen, Nebraska’s governor, defended the conversion earlier.
On October 27, 2025, he said: “The agreement we have with DHS is good for Nebraska’s taxpayers and it ensures we are doing all that we can to keep criminal, illegal aliens off our streets.” That framing presents the facility as a public-safety partnership and a fiscal arrangement.
Courts evaluate something different than public messaging. Judges typically look at sworn declarations, logs, policies as applied, and patterns across many detainees. A press statement can set context. Evidence decides outcomes.
Section 4: Key facts and statistics
Scale shapes daily access. A facility expected to house several hundred detainees needs enough staff for movement, calls, visitation, medical care, and legal coordination. Even small bottlenecks can ripple; one missed legal call can mean a missed filing.
Funding structure can also affect operations. Nebraska’s arrangement runs through NDCS and DHS, with a recurring payment model. In many facilities, steady monthly payments can influence staffing plans, vendor contracts, and the compliance culture around audits and inspections.
The litigation points to volume and legal framing: holding “hundreds” of people without bond hearings is presented as not just a staffing issue but a legal claim that detention is being treated as mandatory when the law may require individualized determination for many detainees.
Oversight intersects with these issues. On February 2, 2026, a federal court entered a temporary restraining order restoring unannounced congressional oversight visits. Unannounced visits can matter because they test day-to-day realities and create records lawyers later use to argue about access to counsel and conditions.
After this section, an interactive tool will present key facts and statistics side by side for easier comparison and visualization of items such as facility scale, contract payment, annualized amounts, and oversight developments.
Section 5: Significance and impact
Enforcement surges can collide with court process. The lawsuits arrive amid federal enforcement described in public discussion as “Operation Metro Surge,” and they test whether fast, broad detention decisions still require individualized determination and timely bond hearings.
Transfers are a practical pressure point. Moving detainees away from prior counsel can break attorney-client relationships and slow evidence gathering. A medical record, a family affidavit, or a local court document may take longer to collect from a distance.
That delay can shape bond hearing outcomes when hearings occur quickly, or harm detainees when hearings are delayed. Multiple jurisdictions are watching similar questions: when federal judges in different states address bond hearings and detention duration, those rulings can influence how agencies design detention practices.
For readers, concrete outcomes that may matter most include whether bond-hearing access expands, whether attorney-client access rules change in practice, and whether oversight visits remain protected.
⚠️ Upcoming court deadlines and potential rulings to watch. Federal judges may issue orders addressing bond-hearing availability, detention duration, or compliance steps tied to oversight and access-to-counsel claims. Watch for court-set deadlines for policy changes, status reports, and enforcement of the February 2, 2026 oversight order.
✅ What detainees and counsel should document or monitor: keep careful records of attorney-call requests, visit scheduling, privacy conditions for legal calls, mail delays, and any transfer notice timing. Counsel may also want to monitor updates to facility procedures and any new court orders that change access rules.
Section 6: Official sources and further reading
Readers looking for primary materials can consult these official channels and repositories: ICE Detention Management page (ICE website); DHS Newsroom (DHS website); Nebraska Governor’s office site; and the ACLU Nebraska case page for litigation summaries and links to filings.
For statutory background, the Immigration and Nationality Act is available through Cornell Law School at Cornell Law School.
This article summarizes official filings and statements and does not constitute legal advice.
Legal outcomes are not guaranteed; readers should consult a qualified attorney for personal guidance.
