Clinton Judge Releases Boy, 5, and His Father from ICE Detention, Makes Mistake So Bad on Order This May Be the First Time It’s Ever Recorded

Most Americans would assume that federal judges — ostensibly some of the most important arbiters in the U.S. judiciary system — would have a pretty good grasp of the basic facts.

Things like who, what, when, where, and why are all rather important topics when presiding over any tenuous legal matter.

Alas, every once in a while, judges can apparently get those very important factoids wrong, too.

And it’s raising a lot of questions.

Eyebrows (and iPhone calendar apps) were raised on Saturday, when news broke that Texas federal judge Fred Biery (who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton) had ordered the release of a 5-year-old boy and his father from a local Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility.

Given the inflamed tensions surrounding anything involving ICE currently, that order was bound to feature quite a bit of national attention one way or another.

As Fox News’ Bill Melugin points out, that order also came with a glaring error:

BREAKING: Texas federal judge Fred Biery (Clinton appointee) has ordered the release of 5-year-old Liam Conejo Ramos & his father from ICE detention in TX. In his decision, he includes a photo of the boy and gets today’s date wrong (Feb 31st doesn’t even exist) while saying that… pic.twitter.com/58IbuQAZJZ

— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) January 31, 2026

Biery’s order ends with a definitive, “SIGNED, this 31st day of February, 2026.”

While Saturday was Jan. 31, most have probably surmised by now that there is no February 31 — as it’s a month that gets 29 days in it at most.

That error understandably brought out the critics, but Biery’s other remarks were just as deserving of pushback.

Before that dating blunder, Biery made sure to keep his words toward federal law enforcement as sharp and biting as possible.

“Civics lesson to the government: Administrative warrants issued by the executive branch to itself do not pass probable cause muster,” Biery wrote. “That is called the fox guarding the henhouse.

“The Constitution requires an independent judicial officer.”

Biery further chided: “Observing human behavior confirms that for some among us, the perfidious lust for unbridled power and the imposition of cruelty in its quest know no bounds and are bereft of decency. And the rule of law be damned.”

Melugin also took issue with the judge’s other social media activity, including liking a post that was protesting against President Donald Trump.

When one X user contested that Biery was — date notwithstanding — “right,” Melugin fired back that the judge with activist leanings was anything but.

No he’s not. SCOTUS ruled on the legality of administrative warrants a long time ago. Judicial warrants are not required. Every single administration has used administrative warrants. If DOJ appeals this it will likely be reversed by 5th Circuit quickly.

— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) February 1, 2026

“No he’s not [right],” Melugin posted in response. “[The Supreme Court] ruled on the legality of administrative warrants a long time ago. Judicial warrants are not required. Every single administration has used administrative warrants.”

Furthermore, even apart from the date, Melugin seemed to think it’s Judge Biery’s logic that won’t pass “muster.”

“If [the Department of Justice] appeals this it will likely be reversed by [the] 5th Circuit quickly,” Melugin posted.

Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.