Federal judge in Kansas releases immigration detainees because of slow deportation cases 32%

By Zach Boblitt0%

4/9/2026, 4:39:40 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 13 faulty reasoning types, including Quote-first Misdirection, Appeal to Authority, and Hasty Generalization, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 42.3% saturation with 202 hits. Analysis detected 591 faulty-reasoning hits from 478 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 40.8% and a BS Rank of 32% (15,041 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 68.70% of the article peer group.

Senior Judge John Lungstrum, who serves on the federal bench in Kansas City, Kansas, has released more than 20 immigration detainees because immigration officials failed to justify continued detention after months of unsuccessful removal efforts. 
Under the U.S. 
Supreme Court decision Zadvydas v. 
Davis, the government generally has 90 days to deport someone, with six months considered a reasonable maximum detention period. 
After that, the government must show deportation is likely in the foreseeable future. 
That has caused the judge’s frustration and the releases, as first reported by the Topeka Capital-Journal. 
Unreasonably indefinite detention 
One of the cases involved Gerardo Reyna-Salgado, who was taken into immigration custody in December 2024 following a state conviction for domestic battery. 
In a December 2025 ruling, Lungstrum wrote the standard had not been met in Reyna-Salgado’s case. 
“Petitioner has now provided good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future,” he wrote. 
Lungstrum said there had been little effort to move the case forward. 
“It appears that officials have not made any new attempts to remove petitioner in the last four months,” he wrote. 
He also highlighted a key failure, writing that officials “have not even identified a country that they are actively investigating” for deportation. 
The judge even used an exclamation to emphasize a point in the order. 
“Have not even made the required 90-day custody determination… over eight months ago!” 
He said that failure “belies any suggestion that officials have acted with diligence.” 
Because of those issues, the judge concluded the detention had gone too far. 
“Petitioner’s detention has become unreasonably indefinite,” Lungstrum wrote, ordering Reyna-Salgado released under supervision. 
The judge also sharply criticized the lack of progress and detail from federal officials in another case. 
No meaningful attempts 
In one order, involving Georgian undocumented immigrant Irakli Zhuzhiashvili, the judge noted that immigration authorities had repeated the same claim that they attempted removal to three countries, again with no details concerning those attempts. 
Once removal is no longer reasonably foreseeable, continued detention is no longer authorized by the statute,” Lungstrum wrote. 
The court found that government officials had made no meaningful attempts to transfer Zhuzhiashvili. 
His detention, the judge said, had become indefinite and unlawful. 
Emails submitted as evidence showed officials had acknowledged the lack of progress in finding a third country. 
The court ordered immigration authorities to release Zhuzhiashvili last October under appropriate supervision. 
Zach Boblitt reports on the Kansas Statehouse and government for Kansas Public Radio and the Kansas News Service. 
You can email him at zach.boblitt@ku.edu. 
The Kansas News Service is a collaboration of KCUR, Kansas Public Radio, KMUW and High Plains Public Radio. 
Kansas News Service stories and photos may be republished by news media at no cost with proper attribution and a link to ksnewsservice.org. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Zach Boblitt: 1.0%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Boblitt: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Boblitt: 1.5%Columbia Missourian: 2.7%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 4.8%Zach Boblitt: 0.9%Columbia Missourian: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic4.8%This article: 0.0%Zach Boblitt: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Boblitt: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 9.2%Zach Boblitt: 3.0%Columbia Missourian: 5.5%Framing Effect9.2%This article: 0.0%Zach Boblitt: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Boblitt: 1.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Boblitt: 0.9%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Boblitt: 1.7%Columbia Missourian: 4.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Boblitt: 0.9%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 42.3%Zach Boblitt: 8.7%Columbia Missourian: 5.4%Negativity Bias42.3%This article: 0.0%Zach Boblitt: 2.3%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Boblitt: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Boblitt: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Boblitt: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Boblitt: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Boblitt: 2.3%Columbia Missourian: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Boblitt: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Boblitt: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.3%Zach Boblitt: 0.6%Columbia Missourian: 0.9%Recency Bias3.3%This article: 0.0%Zach Boblitt: 0.6%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Boblitt: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Boblitt: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Boblitt: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.1%Zach Boblitt: 5.5%Columbia Missourian: 2.9%Appeal to Authority11.1%This article: 0.0%Zach Boblitt: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Boblitt: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Boblitt: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 9.8%Zach Boblitt: 2.8%Columbia Missourian: 3.6%Hasty Generalization9.8%This article: 0.0%Zach Boblitt: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Boblitt: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 5.4%Zach Boblitt: 2.2%Columbia Missourian: 5.2%Appeal to Emotion5.4%This article: 2.7%Zach Boblitt: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.6%Begging the Question2.7%This article: 0.0%Zach Boblitt: 2.3%Columbia Missourian: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Boblitt: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.7%Zach Boblitt: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Burden of Proof2.7%This article: 0.0%Zach Boblitt: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Boblitt: 1.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Boblitt: 1.1%Columbia Missourian: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Boblitt: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Boblitt: 0.6%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Boblitt: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Boblitt: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Boblitt: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Boblitt: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Boblitt: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.8%Zach Boblitt: 1.7%Columbia Missourian: 0.8%Unattributed Quote4.8%This article: 11.7%Zach Boblitt: 2.5%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection11.7%This article: 9.6%Zach Boblitt: 3.3%Columbia Missourian: 2.9%Biased Writer Voice9.6%This article: 0.0%Zach Boblitt: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Boblitt: 0.8%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Boblitt: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 6.1%Zach Boblitt: 1.4%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…6.1%

478 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker33%attributed speech318writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Lungstrum • 16 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Lungstrum • 23 words • 100.0% coverageJohn Lungstrum • 12 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Lungstrum • 20 words • 100.0% coverageJohn Lungstrum • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageJohn Lungstrum • 13 words • 100.0% coverageJohn Lungstrum • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Lungstrum • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Lungstrum • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Lungstrum • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

John Lungstrum

100%flagged-word coverage
160 attributed words100% of attributed speech77% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Quote-first Misdirection+35.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%John Lungstrum: 35.0%35.0%Biased Writer Voice-14.5 ptsWriter: 14.5%John Lungstrum: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote+14.4 ptsWriter: 0.0%John Lungstrum: 14.4%14.4%Attempt to Sell a Product -9.1 ptsWriter: 9.1%John Lungstrum: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.