Castillo v. Noem et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Diana Laura Espinosa Castillo,
Petitioner,
v.
Kristi Noem, et al.,
Respondents.
No. CV-25-04867-PHX-KML (MTM)
ORDER
Petitioner filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1.) The petition presents
the recurring issue whether a particular individual is subject to mandatory detention under
8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). District courts have split on this issue as set forth in Zepeda v. Noem,
CV-25-4236-PHX-KML (JFM), ECF No. 13 at 2–3 (D. Ariz. Dec. 11, 2025). On
December 11, 2025, the Seventh Circuit concluded the Department of Homeland Security
and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement were “not likely to succeed on the
merits of their argument” regarding “mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A).”
Castanon-Nava v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 25-3050, 2025 WL 3552514, at *9
(7th Cir. Dec. 11, 2025). And on December 18, 2025, the Central District of California
entered judgment in a class action likely covering petitioner declaring “the Bond Eligible
Class members are detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and are not subject to mandatory
detention under § 1225(b)(2)” and vacating “the Department of Homeland Security policy
described in the July 8, 2025, ‘Interim Guidance Regarding Detention Authority for
Applicants for Admission’ under the Administrative Procedure Act as not in accordance
Case 2:25-cv-04867-KML--MTM Document 5 Filed 12/29/25 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
with law. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).” Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 5:25-CV-01873-SSS-BFM,
Doc. 94 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025).
Based on prior decisions in the District of Arizona, the Seventh Circuit’s opinion,
and the final judgment entered by the Central District of California, respondents must show
cause why the petition should not be granted to the extent that petitioner be released or
provided a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226.1
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 2) is DENIED.
2. Counsel for petitioner must immediately serve the petition upon respondents.
3. If not already issued, the clerk’s office must issue any properly completed
summonses.
4. The clerk of court must immediately transmit by email a copy of this order and the
petition to the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona, to the attention of
Katherine Branch at katherine.branch@usdoj.gov, Melissa Kroeger at
melissa.kroeger@usdoj.gov, Lon Leavitt at lon.leavitt@usdoj.gov, and Theo
Nickerson at Theo.Nickerson2@usdoj.gov.
5. Respondents must show cause no later than December 31, 2025 why the petition
should not be granted. Petitioner may file a reply no later than January 2, 2026.
Dated this 29th day of December, 2025.
1 Petitioner also filed a motion for temporary restraining order. (Doc. 2.) That motion is
rendered moot by issuance of this order to show cause and is denied.
Case 2:25-cv-04867-KML--MTM Document 5 Filed 12/29/25 Page 2 of 2