Banegas Santos, Maria v. Bondi, Pamela et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
MARIA CONCEPCION BANEGAS SANTOS,
Petitioner, OPINION AND ORDER
v.
26-cv-63-wmc
PAMELA JO BONDI, Attorney General of the United States,
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security,
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
TODD LYONS, Acting Director of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT,
DAREN K. MARGOLIN, Acting Director,
Executive Office for Immigration Review,
DAVID EASTERWOOD, Director, St. Paul
Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
MATT IZZARD, Sheriff of Douglas County,
Respondents.
Petitioner Maria Concepcion Banegas Santos (“Banegas”) filed a petition for a writ
of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 while in the custody of United States
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) at the Douglas County Jail in Superior,
Wisconsin. On February 10, 2026, the court granted the petition and ordered respondents
to afford petitioner a bond hearing before an immigration judge under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)
within seven days. (Dkt. #10.) The court further directed respondents to address
petitioner’s argument that she is entitled to release because she has been detained in
violation of ICE Policy Directive 11032.4, which prohibits detention of nursing mothers
absent exceptional circumstances. (Id.) Because respondents have conceded no valid
reason for her detention exists, the court find that petitioner is entitled to additional relief,
therefore, respondents are ordered to release her and reunite her with her nursing child.
Case: 3:26-cv-00063-wmc Document #: 13 Filed: 02/19/26 Page 1 of 5

2
BACKGROUND1
This case is one of hundreds filed by noncitizens across the United States swept up
by ICE as part of increased efforts by the current administration to enforce immigration
laws and detain those individuals without bond pending expedited removal proceedings.
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Honduras who entered the United States in 2023. In
June 2025, petitioner gave birth to a daughter in St. Paul, Minnesota. On December 23,
2025, ICE agents took petitioner into custody without a warrant of arrest. She has been
detained since that time.2
Petitioner contends that she had been consistently breastfeeding her daughter until
the time of her detention and that her confinement interferes with her ability to do so.
She states further that respondents have not provided her with any equipment to express
milk, store milk, or otherwise provide it to her child. Thus, she contends that respondents
have detained her in violation of ICE policy. Specifically, petitioner argues that her
continued detention violates ICE Directive 11032.4.3 That policy, which governs the
“Identification and Monitoring of Pregnant, Postpartum, or Nursing Individuals,” states
as follows: “ICE should not detain, arrest, or take into custody for an administrative
1 Unless otherwise indicated, the facts set forth in this section are taken from the verified petition
for a writ of habeas corpus. (Dkt. #1.) Because respondents have not disputed any of the material
facts or evidence offered by petitioner, but rely solely on legal arguments, the court accepts these
facts as true for purposes of this opinion.
2 Neither party has provided a status report regarding the bond hearing respondents were directed
to provide to petitioner. Publicly available records reflect that, to date, she remains in custody. See
ICE Online Detainee Locator System, at locator.ice.gov (last visited Feb. 19, 2026).
3 Petitioner also references Policy No. 11039.1, which governs “Detention of Refugees Admitted
Under INA § 207 Who Have Failed to Adjust to Lawful Permanent Resident Status,” but has not
alleged facts showing that she fits within this policy.
Case: 3:26-cv-00063-wmc Document #: 13 Filed: 02/19/26 Page 2 of 5

3
violation of immigration laws individuals known to be pregnant, postpartum, or nursing
unless release is prohibited by law or exceptional circumstances exist.” (Dkt. #1, ¶ 48
(emphasis added).)
OPINION
A district court may grant a writ of habeas corpus if the petitioner shows that she is
in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241(c)(3). Habeas proceedings under § 2241 are an appropriate mechanism for
immigrants in removal proceedings to challenge their ongoing detention. Zadvydas v. Davis,
533 U.S. 678, 687-88 (2001). Here, petitioner argues that her continued detention is
contrary to ICE Directive 11032.4 and that respondents have violated United States ex rel.
Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (1954), by not complying with their own policy.
Specifically, federal agencies are required by the Accardi doctrine to follow their own
rules and regulations. 347 U.S. at 267-68 (holding that the Board of Immigration Appeals
was required to follow its own regulations governing deportation proceedings); see also
Zelaya Diaz v. Rosen, 986 F.3d 687, 692 (7th Cir. 2021) (under Accardi and its progeny,
“federal agencies are required to follow their own regulations and some other formally
adopted procedures, including those that govern exercises of an agency’s discretion”);
Martinez Camargo v. INS, 282 F.3d 487, 491 (7th Cir. 2002) (“[C]ourts have consistently
demanded governmental compliance with administrative regulations designed to safeguard
individual interests.”). Moreover, Accardi is not “limited to rules attaining the status of
formal regulations.” Montilla v. INS, 926 F.2d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 1991); see also Damus v.
Nielsen, 313 F. Supp. 3d 317, 336-37 (D.D.C. 2018) (“the premise underlying the Accardi
Case: 3:26-cv-00063-wmc Document #: 13 Filed: 02/19/26 Page 3 of 5

4
doctrine is that agencies can be held accountable to their own codifications of procedures
and policies -- and particularly those that affect individual rights”). Courts may also reverse
an agency’s action for violating its own internal rules and procedures, particularly those
affecting individual rights. See Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199, 235 (1974) (affirming reversal
of an agency decision to deny public assistance made in violation of an internal agency
manual); United States v. Lee, 274 F.3d 485, 492 (8th Cir. 2001) (administrative agencies
may not take action “inconsistent with their internal regulations when it would affect
individual rights”).
As noted above, Directive 11032.4 provides that ICE “should not detain . . .
individuals known to be nursing . . . unless release is prohibited by law or exceptional
circumstances exist.” The court specifically directed respondents to show cause why
petitioner’s release pending removal proceedings is prohibited by law or explain otherwise
what exceptional circumstances exist that prohibit petitioner’s release pursuant to ICE
Directive 11032.4. (Dkt. #10.) They concede that there are none. (Dkt. #11, at 2.)
Having identified no exceptional circumstance or other legal reason why her release is
impermissible under ICE Directive 11032.4, respondents are in violation of Accardi for
failure to comply with an agency policy that plainly affects individual rights. Thus, the
court will grant the petition and order respondents to release petitioner under conditions
deemed appropriate.
Case: 3:26-cv-00063-wmc Document #: 13 Filed: 02/19/26 Page 4 of 5

5
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1) The petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Maria Concepcion Banegas
Santos (dkt. #1) is GRANTED.
2) Respondents shall release petitioner from custody immediately and certify
compliance with this order by filing a notice with the court by February 24,
2026.
Entered this 19th day of February, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
__________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge
Case: 3:26-cv-00063-wmc Document #: 13 Filed: 02/19/26 Page 5 of 5