Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Miguel L.,
Petitioner,
v.
Kristi Noem, Secretary, Department of
Homeland Security; Todd M. Lyons,
Acting Director, Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; and David
Easterwood, Acting Director, St. Paul
Field Office, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement,
Respondents.
File No. 26-cv-740 (ECT/LIB)
OPINION AND ORDER
________________________________________________________________________
John R. Bruning, Hennepin County Adult Representation Services, Minneapolis, MN, for
Petitioner Miguel L.
Ana H. Voss and Jesus Cruz Rodriguez, United States Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis,
MN, for Respondents Kristi Noem, Todd M. Lyons, and David Easterwood.
Petitioner Miguel L. “has been present in the United States since at least 2022.”
Pet. [ECF No. 1] ¶ 2.1 He was not apprehended “at a border while seeking entry.” Id.
¶ 33. Miguel’s Petition alleges, “[o]n information and belief,” that Miguel “has not been
in removal proceedings and does not have a removal order,” nor does he have “any relevant
criminal history.” Id. ¶¶ 3, 18–19. On January 27, 2026, Miguel was arrested “by federal
agents inside his apartment building in Minneapolis, Minnesota,” as part of “Operation
1 Though the Petition does not mention Miguel’s country of origin, there is no dispute
that Miguel is a non-citizen.
CASE 0:26-cv-00740-ECT-LIB Doc. 7 Filed 02/01/26 Page 1 of 6

2
Metro Surge.” Id. ¶¶ 1, 11, 20–21. The Petition alleges, again “[o]n information and
belief,” that “the agents did not have a valid warrant for his arrest.” Id. ¶ 20. According
to the Petition, “[i]t is unknown whether agents entered the building with the intention of
arresting [Miguel], or if he was encountered by chance and was detained because of his
race and ethnicity.” Id. Miguel “is currently detained at the Whipple Federal Building in
Fort Snelling, Minnesota.” Id. ¶ 11. Respondents do not dispute the Petition’s facts. See
ECF No. 5.
Miguel challenges his detention under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pet. ¶ 8. He claims he has
been wrongly classified as a § 1225(b)(2) detainee (whose detention is mandatory) rather
than a § 1226(a) detainee (whose detention is discretionary and who is entitled to a bond
hearing). Pet. ¶¶ 30–33; see Jose J.O.E. v. Bondi, 797 F. Supp. 3d 957, 961–62 (D. Minn.
2025) (explaining legal framework). According to Miguel, that misclassification and
denial of a bond hearing violate his right to due process under the Fifth Amendment. See
Pet. ¶¶ 34–44. Miguel seeks a declaration that his detention is unlawful; issuance of a writ
of habeas corpus ordering Respondents to release him from custody; issuance of an order
prohibiting his transfer from this District during the pendency of his Petition; attorneys’
fees and costs; and “any and all further relief this Court deems just and proper.” Pet. at
10–11.
In their short response, Respondents argue that Miguel’s Petition fails on the merits
for the same reasons set forth in the appeal of Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-3741 (JRT/SGE),
2025 WL 2976539 (D. Minn. Oct. 21, 2025), appeal docketed, No. 25-3248 (8th Cir. Nov.
CASE 0:26-cv-00740-ECT-LIB Doc. 7 Filed 02/01/26 Page 2 of 6

3
10, 2025). See ECF No. 5 at 1. This raises an issue of statutory interpretation2 that courts
in this District have repeatedly considered and rejected, and it will be rejected here as well.
Miguel has shown he has been misclassified under § 1225(b)(2) rather than § 1226.
As courts have explained, the former statute applies to applicants “seeking admission,” and
the latter to “aliens already in the country.” 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A); Jennings v.
Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 289 (2018) (construing 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and (c)); see
Francisco T. v. Bondi, 797 F. Supp. 3d 970, 974–76 (D. Minn. 2025); Belsai D.S. v. Bondi,
--- F. Supp. 3d ---, No. 25-cv-3682 (KMM/EMB), 2025 WL 2802947, at *6–7 (D. Minn.
Oct. 1, 2025); Eliseo A.A. v. Olson, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, No. 25-cv-3381 (JWB/DJF), 2025
WL 2886729, at *2–4 (D. Minn. Oct. 8, 2025); Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-3741 (JRT/SGE),
2025 WL 2976539, at *5–7 (D. Minn. Oct. 21, 2025), appeal filed, No. 25-3248 (8th Cir.
Nov. 10, 2025); Andres R.E. v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-3946 (NEB/DLM), 2025 WL 3146312,
at *2–3 (D. Minn. Nov. 4, 2025); E.M. v. Noem, 25-cv-3975 (SRN/DTS), 2025 WL
3157839, at *4–8 (D. Minn. Nov. 12, 2025); Santos M.C. v. Olson, No. 25-cv-4264
(PJS/DJF), 2025 WL 3281787, at *2–3 (D. Minn. Nov. 25, 2025). As of this writing, only
one federal court of appeals has ruled on the question, and it reached the same conclusion.
See Castañon-Nava v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048, (7th Cir. 2025).
2 To the extent Respondents challenge this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction to
consider Miguel’s Petition, consistent with previous rulings on this issue, I find that the
jurisdiction-stripping provisions of § 1252(a)(5), (b)(9), and (g) do not apply to “the narrow
question whether a noncitizen is subject to discretionary detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226
or mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2).” Fernando F.P.D. v. Brott, No. 25-cv-4455
(ECT/ECW), 2025 WL 3675151, at *2 (D. Minn. Dec. 17, 2025) (citing cases).
CASE 0:26-cv-00740-ECT-LIB Doc. 7 Filed 02/01/26 Page 3 of 6

4
Miguel has lived in the United States for more than two years. See Pet. ¶ 33. His detention
falls under § 1226(a) and not § 1225(b)(2).3
The final issue is the appropriate remedy. Section 1226 provides that “[o]n a
warrant issued by the Attorney General, an alien may be arrested and detained.”
8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) (emphasis added). “Issuance of a warrant is a necessary condition to
justify discretionary detention under section 1226(a).” Chogllo Chafla v.
Scott, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, No. 2:25-cv-00437, 2025 WL 2688541, at *11 (D. Me. Sep. 21,
2025), appeal filed (Nov. 7, 2025). “[I]t follows that absent a warrant a noncitizen may
not be arrested and detained under section 1226(a).” Id. (emphasis in original); accord
Chiliquinga Yumbillo v. Stamper, No. 2:25-cv-00479, 2025 WL 2783642, at *5 (D. Me.
Sep. 30, 2025); J.A.C.P. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01354, 2025 WL 3013328, at *8 (E.D.
Cal. Oct. 27, 2025); see also Florida v. United States, 660 F. Supp. 3d 1239, 1276 (N.D.
Fla. 2023) (stating § 1226 “is not even triggered unless an arrest warrant is issued” and that
“[i]f [an] alien has not been arrested on a warrant, then the subsequent provisions giving
the Attorney General discretion to detain or release ‘the arrested alien’ are likewise not
triggered”), appeal dismissed, 2023 WL 5212561 (11th Cir. July 11, 2023). Here, Miguel
alleges that he was arrested without a warrant. Pet. ¶ 20. Respondents were ordered to
include in their answer “[w]hether the absence of a warrant preceding [Miguel’s] arrest
necessitates [Miguel’s] immediate release.” See ECF No. 3 at 2. Respondents have not
3 Respondents do not argue that Miguel is subject to mandatory detention pursuant to
8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), or that any other statutory scheme other than that raised in the Petition
would apply to Miguel’s detention. See ECF No. 5.
CASE 0:26-cv-00740-ECT-LIB Doc. 7 Filed 02/01/26 Page 4 of 6

5
produced a warrant, nor have they advanced any specific argument that Miguel’s release is
an unwarranted remedy. See ECF No. 5.
“[R]elease is an available and appropriate remedy” for “detention that lacks a lawful
predicate.” Order on Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus at 6, Vedat C. v. Bondi, No.
25-cv-4642 (JWB/DTS) (D. Minn. Dec. 19, 2025), ECF No. 9 (citing Munaf v. Geren,
553 U.S. 674, 693 (2008)). “Where the record shows Respondents have not identified a
valid statutory basis for detention in the first place, the remedy is not to supply one through
further proceedings.” Id.; see Chogllo Chafla, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2025 WL 2688541, at
*11 (“Since the Government did not comply with the plain language of section 1226(a),
[petitioners’] immediate release is justified.”); J.A.C.P., 2025 WL 3013328, at *8 (same);
Chiliquinga Yumbillo, 2025 WL 2783642, at *5 (reaching same conclusion); see also
Munaf, 553 U.S. at 693 (“Habeas is at its core a remedy for unlawful executive detention.
The typical remedy for such detention is, of course, release.” (citation modified)).4
ORDER
Therefore, based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings
herein, IT IS ORDERED THAT Petitioner Miguel L.’s Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus [ECF No. 1] is GRANTED as follows:
1. Petitioner is not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
4 The resolution of this statutory-interpretation question in Miguel’s favor makes it
unnecessary to address the Petition’s remaining grounds.
CASE 0:26-cv-00740-ECT-LIB Doc. 7 Filed 02/01/26 Page 5 of 6

6
2. Respondents shall release Petitioner from custody as soon as practicable, but
not later than 48 hours after entry of this Order.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: February 1, 2026, at 8:13 p.m. s/ Eric C. Tostrud
Eric C. Tostrud
United States District Court
CASE 0:26-cv-00740-ECT-LIB Doc. 7 Filed 02/01/26 Page 6 of 6