A federal judge appointed by President Biden ordered the release of a Salvadoran MS-13 gang member wanted for murder, prompting fierce criticism from Homeland Security over what they call a dangerous and partisan decision.
U.S. District Judge Jinsook Ohta, whose nomination to the federal bench came from President Biden in 2021, ordered the immediate release of David Antonio Aviles Perez from federal immigration custody on August 26. The ruling came after Ohta found that immigration officials had held Aviles Perez for five months at the Otay Mesa Detention Center in California without a bond hearing or any individualized determination of whether he was a threat to the public or a flight risk.
Aviles Perez, identified by Salvadoran prosecutors as an active MS-13 member wanted for murder, had been scheduled for removal to El Salvador. ICE had arrested him in San Diego on March 26 on an international warrant that alleged aggravated murder in his home country, and he had also previously been arrested in Monterey, California after allegedly swinging a machete at a homeless man in 2023. El Salvador had already sentenced him in absentia to 20 years for the 2014 aggravated homicide of an alleged MS-13 rival, according to the New York Post.
Despite these allegations and convictions, Judge Ohta’s order not only mandated Aviles Perez’s release but also barred ICE from detaining him again unless an immigration judge first held a bond hearing and found renewed detention warranted. In her decision, Ohta wrote, “Although Petitioner appears to have previously been convicted following a fight with another individual in May 2023, the government has offered no evidence that it detained him after considering those facts and making an individualized determination of his danger to the public or flight risk.” She further noted there was “no process before or after his detention.”
This ruling triggered a sharp rebuke from Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, who said, “This radical activist judge has put American lives at risk by releasing a wanted murderer,” and added, “This is now the SECOND time this dangerous illegal has been released back onto the streets in California.” Mullin argued that “because sanctuary politicians want to play politics from the bench, innocent Americans are in danger.” He also insisted, “DHS and ICE will not be deterred by these partisan games,” and declared, “If California’s leaders won’t protect Americans, DHS will.”
The decision to release Aviles Perez highlights the tension between federal immigration enforcement and the judiciary, particularly in California, where state and local sanctuary policies have become a flashpoint. The Otay Mesa Detention Center, where Aviles Perez was held, is a frequent site for such legal battles. Judge Ohta’s ruling, focusing on due process rights, echoed a pattern of judicial interventions that frustrate immigration authorities and raise questions about public safety outcomes.
Federal law enforcement officials cited by the New York Post described a broader trend: “Criminal aliens are being released from ICE custody by activist judges on courts across the country.” The Aviles Perez case is only the latest in a series of high-profile releases, with critics arguing that the judicial branch is undermining immigration enforcement and risking the safety of communities already struggling with crime and gang violence.
Judge Jinsook Ohta’s rise through the bench underscores the political stakes. She was first appointed to the San Diego County Superior Court in December 2020 by California Governor Gavin Newsom, before President Biden tapped her for the federal district court in 2021. The Senate confirmed her later that year. Her rulings have increasingly drawn attention as part of a larger debate over the role of Biden-appointed judges in immigration and public safety cases. Readers will recall other recent headlines, such as a Biden-nominated judge blocking Trump’s revised executive order on birthright citizenship, another example of how judicial appointments are shaping national policy battles, as seen in our coverage of that ruling.
These decisions are not isolated. In one case out of Brooklyn, a local judge set bail below prosecutors' requests in every reviewed case, including attempted-murder charges, which led to similar concerns about judicial leniency and the consequences for public safety. Readers can find more about that pattern in our report from Brooklyn.
The Aviles Perez case brings California’s sanctuary policies back into the spotlight. As DHS officials pointed out, this was the second time Aviles Perez had been released onto California’s streets, despite his status as a wanted murderer and convicted MS-13 gang member. The underlying dynamic, a revolving door for dangerous criminals, has become a recurring concern for residents and law enforcement alike.
These local and federal tensions play out against the backdrop of a national debate over border security, immigration enforcement, and the responsibilities of the courts. Other Biden-appointed judges have made headlines for striking down Trump administration immigration rules, including a 75-country visa freeze, as covered in our recent reporting. The result is a legal and political environment where the consequences of judicial decisions land hardest on ordinary citizens, those who bear the costs of crime and instability enabled by what critics call activist rulings.
For some, the Aviles Perez outcome also recalls the ongoing humanitarian and criminal crises at the border, with tens of thousands of children trafficked into the U.S. and many still unaccounted for, issues detailed in our earlier investigation. The cumulative impact of these policies and rulings is a system that too often leaves American families vulnerable and frontline law enforcement overwhelmed.
While supporters of Judge Ohta’s ruling point to constitutional due process and the need for individualized hearings, critics argue that the price of such decisions is borne by law-abiding Americans who expect the government to prioritize their safety. As the Fox News reporting and other sources make clear, the debate is no longer just about legal technicalities but about the real-world consequences of releasing violent offenders back into American neighborhoods.
As the dust settles from another court-ordered release of a dangerous criminal, Americans are left to wonder how many more times the system will put their safety second to judicial theory and political calculations.