Last week, Colorado’s chief federal judge broke with his colleagues to uphold the Donald Trump administration’s interpretation of its authority to detain illegal immigrants. 

Chief Judge Daniel Domenico was right to do so. 

The Gazette’s editorial summed it up: “Activist attorneys inundated Colorado’s federal court system with ‘habeas corpus’ cases challenging federal authority to hold illegal immigrants ‘seeking admission’ to the country without bond, pending removal proceedings.” 

Most federal judges in Colorado and across the country have done the opposite — mandating release on bond simply because they’re already here. 

Imagine a teenager who gets caught after sneaking into Elitches. He insists he didn’t do anything wrong. He’s already inside, so obviously he’s been admitted. 

The amusement park counters: You didn’t enter properly. You never got a ticket. 

“It’s okay,” the teen protests. “I’m not seeking admission — I’m already inside!” 

Sorry, kid. Getting through the fence instead of the gate doesn’t make you admitted. You needed a ticket. It’s time to go. 

The same logic applies to the southern U.S. border. Sneaking across or overstaying a visa does not change the reality of being here unlawfully. You still require lawful admission. 

Domenico put it plainly: “‘Admitted’ and ‘admission’ mean ‘the lawful entry of [an] alien into the United States after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer’” and “not simply physical entry into the country.” 

“It is undisputed,” Domenico wrote, “that the petitioner is present in the United States and has not been lawfully admitted.” Thus, he’s an “applicant for admission under the law.” 

To his credit, Domenico acknowledges that his ruling doesn’t align with his district court colleagues. 

“The majority of district courts, including all of the judges in this District who have addressed the issue, have found that detention of noncitizens similar to the petitioner under (the mandatory detention provision) is improper,” he said. “There are legitimate arguments on both sides.” 

“The fact that district courts have reached inconsistent outcomes in these cases is unfortunate,” Domenico wrote — but he won’t rule differently because of that. Instead, he’s “duty-bound” to follow his “best understanding of the law.” 

The integrity and self-awareness of Domenico’s approach underscore the thoughtful way he considers the law. 

Outside Colorado, though, he isn’t alone. The New Orleans-based Fifth and St. Louis-based Eighth Circuits sided with the government’s policy. 

As Judge Edith Jones, a Ronald Reagan appointee, wrote for the Fifth Circuit majority: “That prior Administrations decided to use less than their full enforcement authority … does not mean they lacked the authority to do more.” 

Policy and legality aren’t the same thing. Just because past administrations didn’t adopt this policy doesn’t make it illegal. 

“If you count them as still knocking on the door even though they’re physically present in the US — and we know that they’ve already bypassed the inspection point — they’d be held with no bond until the hearing, right? It makes sense if you’re looking at it in the kind of legal parameters of it,” John Fabbricatore, former Denver ICE Field Director, told me. 

“We’ve seen too many times where an alien will bond out and disappear again,” Fabbricatore added. He pointed to an estimated 1.7 million final orders of removal for illegal immigrants who still haven’t left despite a judge’s deportation order — including criminal aliens who may commit another crime. 

Domenico’s ruling understands that enforcement gap, and his deft hand is no anomaly. 

The judge showed the same deliberative approach when Denver Public Schools sued to block the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement policy near schools. 

The district argued an ICE raid at a nearby apartment complex proved schools were no longer “protected areas.” They wanted the courts to craft sanctuary zones nationwide but couldn’t prove their own example would have violated prior Biden-era policy. Domenico saw through it. 

“I know everybody’s switched sides on nationwide injunctions in the last few weeks, but I’m trying to be consistent,” Domenico said in his March 2025 bench ruling. By seeking a nationwide injunction, the district sought to go beyond the parties in the case and rewrite federal enforcement for the whole country. 

“I do think that the public interest would be harmed by a federal court seeking to overturn immigration policy in this way, in this case,” Domenico cautioned.  

Two months later, the US Supreme Court vindicated him. In Trump v. CASA, the Court invalidated a growing trend of “universal” injunctions — sweeping orders blocking federal policy nationwide, even for parties not directly involved in a case. 

Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s majority opinion warned of “forum shopping,” whereby activists can cherry-pick favorable courts to advance their agenda, and held that courts must grant “complete relief” to the plaintiff, not the wider public. 

Domenico caught it first. If his detention analysis is similarly vindicated, it won’t be a surprise. 

Here is a level-headed, thoughtful judge — offering cutting-edge legal analysis, grounded in the law. As Ben Van Horn, Domenico’s former law clerk, told Colorado Politics after his elevation to chief judge: “He approaches each matter with intellectual rigor and a strong commitment to getting the law right, while ensuring all parties are heard.” 

That temperament shines through Domenico’s rulings. As President Trump considers filling a Colorado-based vacancy on the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals — or perhaps even a future Supreme Court vacancy — he should look to Dan Domenico. 

Jimmy Sengenberger is an investigative journalist, public speaker, and longtime local talk-radio host. Reach Jimmy online at Jimmysengenberger.com or on X (formerly Twitter) @SengCenter.