Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
U.H.A., K.A., M. DOE, H.D., D. DOE, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated; and
THE ADVOCATES FOR HUMAN RIGHTS,
Petitioner-Plaintiff
and Plaintiffs,
v.
PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General of the
United States;
KRISTI NOEM, 	Secretary of 	the 	United
States Department of Homeland Security;
TODD M. LYONS, Acting Director of the
United States Immigration and Customs
Enforcement;
DAVID EASTERWOOD, Acting Director, St.
Paul Field Office, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement;
JOSEPH 	B. 	EDLOW, 	Director, 	U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services,
Defendants-
Respondents.
Civil No. 26-417 (JRT/DLM)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
DISSOLVE THE TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER
Ariana Kiener, Bryan Plaster, E. Michelle Drake, Hans W. Lodge, John G.
Albanese, Jordan C. Hughes, Joseph Hashmall, Katherine Raths, Marika K.
O’Connor Grant, Soledad Slowing Romero, BERGER MONTAGUE PC, 1229
CASE 0:26-cv-00417-JRT-DLM Doc. 91 Filed 02/09/26 Page 1 of 20

2
Tyler 	Street 	Northeast, 	Suite 	205, 	Minneapolis, 	MN 	55413; 	Megan
McLaughlin Hauptman, Ghita Schwarz, Mevlude Amina Akay Alp, Pedro
Sepulveda, 	Jr., 	INTERNATIONAL 	REFUGEE 	ASSISTANCE 	PROJECT, 	650
Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20009; and Sarah Kahn,
Bardis Vakili, CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS & CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 1505
East Seventeenth Street, Suite 117, Santa Ana, CA 92705, for Petitioner-
Plaintiff and Plaintiffs.
Ana H. Voss, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, 300 South Fourth Street,
Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55415; Brantley Mayers, DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest, Washington, DC 20530, for
Defendants-Respondents.
After the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) implemented a
new policy that requires arresting and detaining individuals who are lawful refugees in
Minnesota, Plaintiffs initiated this putative class action on behalf of Minnesota residents
who are lawful refugees who have not yet been adjusted to lawful permanent resident
status. 	On January 24, 2026, Plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order (TRO).
(Docket No. 16.) On January 28, 2026, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO and
(1) enjoined Defendants from arresting or detaining any member of the putative class in
Minnesota on the basis that they are a refugee who has not yet adjusted to lawful
permanent resident status; and (2) ordered the immediate return and release of the
members of a putative subclass consisting of those refugees who are presently detained
under the policy. (Docket No 41.) The next day, the Court found good cause to extend
the effect of the TRO for an additional 14 days—to February 25, 2026—or until the Court
issues an order on the preliminary injunction, whichever is earlier. (Docket No. 49.)
CASE 0:26-cv-00417-JRT-DLM Doc. 91 Filed 02/09/26 Page 2 of 20

3
Defendants now move to dissolve the TRO, or alternatively, stay the TRO pending
appeal. (Docket No. 55.) Because the Dataphase factors continue to weigh in favor of
granting temporary relief, the Court will deny the motion.1
BACKGROUND
On January 9, 2026, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced Operation Post-Admission
Refugee Reverification and Integrity Strengthening (“Operation PARRIS”).2 (Class Action
Compl. & Am. Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Am. Pet.”) ¶ 1, Jan. 24, 2026, Docket No.
12.) The Operation seeks to target and reexamine the legal status of Minnesota’s roughly
5,600 refugees who have not yet secured lawful permanent resident (LPR) status.
(Declaration of E. Michelle Drake (“Drake Decl.”) ¶ 17, Jan. 24, 2026, Docket No. 16-4;
Drake Decl., Ex. 15.) To effectuate this reexamination, DHS began the warrantless arrest
and detention of refugees present in the United States for greater than one year who
were still awaiting adjudication of their LPR status. (Am. Pet. ¶¶ 6–7; see also Defs.’ Mem.
Supp. Mot. Dissolve TRO at 4, Jan. 31, 2026, Docket No. 56.) Plaintiffs commenced this
putative class action seeking to challenge the Refugee Detention Policy that Defendants
1 Although the Court will order that Defendants’ motion to dissolve the TRO be denied,
the matter is not converted into a preliminary injunction. 11A Wright & Miller’s Federal Practice
& Procedure § 2953 (3d ed. 2025). 	The Court will consider whether to issue a preliminary
injunction after briefing and the hearing scheduled on February 19, 2026.
2 The Court extensively recounted the factual and procedural background of this litigation
in U.H.A. v. Bondi, Civ. No. 26-417, 2026 WL 222226, at *1–3 (D. Minn. Jan. 28, 2026), which the
Court does not repeat here.
CASE 0:26-cv-00417-JRT-DLM Doc. 91 Filed 02/09/26 Page 3 of 20

4
have employed in furtherance of Operation PARRIS.3 	(Am. Pet.; Pls.’ Mot. for Rule
23(b)(2) Class Cert., Jan. 24, 2026, Docket No. 15.) Plaintiffs then sought a TRO, seeking
to enjoin enforcement of the Refugee Detention Policy. 	(Mot. for TRO, Jan. 24, 2026,
Docket No. 16.)
On January 28, 2026, the Court granted temporary relief to a putative “Class”
defined as “[a]ll individuals with refugee status who are residing in the state of Minnesota,
who have not yet adjusted to lawful permanent resident status, and have not been
charged with any ground for removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act” and
enjoined Defendants from arresting and detaining any member of the Class on the basis
that they are a refugee who has not been adjusted to lawful permanent resident status.
U.H.A. v. Bondi, Civ. No. 26-417, 2026 WL 222226, at *13 (D. Minn. Jan. 28, 2026). The
Court also granted temporary relief to a putative “Detained Subclass” defined as “[a]ll
members of the Class who are or will be detained by DHS pursuant to the Refugee
Detention Policy” and ordered their release. (Id.)
On January 29, 2026, the Court issued an order concluding, that good cause existed
to extend the TRO under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(2) to allow the parties the
3 Plaintiffs define the “Refugee Detention Policy” as Defendants’ policy “that would
subject all lawfully present refugees who have not yet obtained lawful permanent resident
(“LPR”) status to arrest and mandatory detention after being present in the United States for one
year—even though refugees cannot adjust to LPR status until the one-year mark[.]” (Pls.’ Mem.
Supp. Mot. for TRO at 10, Jan. 24, 2026, Docket No. 16-2.) This Policy would appear to subject
ALL lawfully admitted refugees who are not yet adjusted to arrest and detention. For ease and
consistency, the Court will refer to DHS’s new policy as the “Refugee Detention Policy.”
CASE 0:26-cv-00417-JRT-DLM Doc. 91 Filed 02/09/26 Page 4 of 20

5
requested amount of time to respond.4 U.H.A. v. Bondi, Civ. No. 26-417, 2026 WL 242879,
at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 29, 2026). Accordingly, the TRO entered by the Court on January 28,
2026, will remain in effect until February 25, 2026, or until the Court rules on the
preliminary injunction, whichever occurs first. Id.
Defendants move to dissolve the TRO or, alternatively, request that the TRO be
stayed pending appeal. (Docket No. 55.)
DISCUSSION
I. 	STANDARD OF REVIEW
The purpose of a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunctive relief is to
maintain the status quo. Tumey v. Mycroft AI, Inc., 27 F.4th 657, 664 (8 th Cir. 2022). A
party against whom a temporary restraining order has been entered may move to
dissolve or modify the order on two days’ notice to the opposing party.5 Fed. R. Civ. P.
65(b)(4). The central inquiry in assessing whether to dissolve or modify a TRO is whether
4 As previously noted by the Court, Defendants arguably consented to an extension under
Rule 65(b)(2). At a status conference on January 26, 2026—two days before the Court entered
the TRO—Defendants requested that they be given two weeks to respond to Plaintiff’s motion
for a temporary restraining order. (Hr’g Tr. at 14, Jan. 29, 2026, Docket No. 42 (The Court: “So if
we are looking at a hearing on a preliminary injunction, regardless of what happens with the TRO,
you want two weeks to respond to this in writing?” Defendants’ counsel: “Yes, sir.”).) Therefore,
if the Court granted Defendants two weeks to respond and the Court did not extend the 14-day
time limit, Plaintiffs would have little or no time to respond and the Court would have at most
two days to issue an order before the TRO expired. Such a restricted time limitation would be
unfair, in light of the important issues to consider in this case.
5 Defendants state that they satisfied the two-day notice requirement by noticing their
intent to dissolve the TRO by email on January 29, 2026. (Defs.’ Mem. Supp. Mot. Dissolve TRO
at 6 n.1, Jan. 31, 2026, Docket No. 56.)
CASE 0:26-cv-00417-JRT-DLM Doc. 91 Filed 02/09/26 Page 5 of 20

6
the conditions that warranted the TRO continue to be present. MiTek Inc. v. McIntosh,
Civ. No. 4:23-960, 2023 WL 5528034, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 28, 2023) (citing 11A Wright &
Miller’s Federal Practice & Procedure § 2953 (3d ed. 2023)). 	“[T]he Court should not
dissolve a TRO if it believes the TRO is necessary to preserve the status quo and prevent
irreparable harm.” Id.
II. 	ANALYSIS
Defendants argue that the TRO must be dissolved because Plaintiffs are not likely
to succeed on the merits and balance of the harms and public interest weigh in their favor.
The Court disagrees and will address each of Defendants’ arguments and the Dataphase
factors in turn.6 Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 113 (8 th Cir. 1981). The
Court will also address—and deny—Defendants’ requests to narrow the TRO and to stay
pending appeal.
A. 	Likelihood of Success on the Merits
Defendants argue that the TRO should be dissolved because they are likely to
succeed on the merits, maintaining that the use of the term “custody” in 8 U.S.C.
§ 1159(a)(1) authorizes DHS to arrest and detain refugees who have been present in the
United States for more than one year for “inspection and examination for admission” as
6 In the Eighth Circuit, the Court considers four factors when considering a motion for a
TRO: (1) the threat of irreparable harm to the moving party; (2) the state of balance between the
alleged irreparable harm and the harm that granting the TRO would inflict on the other party; (3)
the likelihood of the moving party’s success on the merits; and (4) the public interest. Dataphase
Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 113 (8 th Cir. 1981).
CASE 0:26-cv-00417-JRT-DLM Doc. 91 Filed 02/09/26 Page 6 of 20

7
lawful permanent residents. 	Alternatively, Defendants argue that § 1159(a)(1) cross-
references 	8 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1225, 	which 	mandates 	detention 	for 	certain 	noncitizens.7
Defendants’ arguments are unavailing.
1. 	Meaning of “Custody” Under 8 U.S.C. § 1159(a)(1)
Section 1159(a)(1) provides that once an individual has been admitted as a refugee
under 8 U.S.C. § 1157 and has been physically present in the United States for over a year
but has not been adjusted to LPR status, they must “at the end of such year period, return
or be returned to the custody of the Department of Homeland Security for inspection and
examination for admission to the United States as an immigrant in accordance with the
provisions of sections 1225, 1229a, and 1231 of this title.” 8 U.S.C. § 1159(a)(1) (emphasis
added).
Defendants argue that the word “custody” in § 1159(a)(1)(c) mandates detention.
The Court is not persuaded. As the Court explained previously, § 1159(a)(1)(C) provides
that refugees “return or be returned to custody” for the purpose of inspection and
reexamination of refugees. 	See U.H.A., 2026 WL 222226, at *6. 	Within the context of
§ 1159(a)’s narrow purpose, the term “custody” does not mean detention for at least
three reasons, in addition to those stated in the Court’s order granting the TRO.8 	See
7 For a more fulsome discussion of the statutory and regulatory background relevant to
refugees, see U.H.A., 2026 WL 222226, at *4–6.
8 As discussed in the January 28, 2026 TRO Order, the Court listed four reasons
that Defendants’ interpretation of the word “custody” was unlikely to prevail:
CASE 0:26-cv-00417-JRT-DLM Doc. 91 Filed 02/09/26 Page 7 of 20

8
Nestle Purina Petcare Co. v. C.I.R., 594 F.3d 968, 971 (8 th Cir. 2010) (noting that to analyze
the plain text of a statute, the court must read “the statute as a whole by considering its
context, object, and policy”).
First, the phrase “custody” in the statute is limited to a simple, narrow
purpose: conducting “inspection and examination for admission to the United
States as an immigrant[.]” 8 U.S.C. § 1159(a)(1)(C); see Amin A. v. Trump, Civ. No.
26-251, Docket No. 11, at 4 (D. Minn. Jan. 26, 2026). In the context of that limited
purpose, “custody” is best read to mean “responsibility” or “control,” rather than
prolonged detention. See Custody, Black’s Law Dictionary (12 th ed. 2024) (defining
custody as, among other things, “responsibility for taking care of” and “[t]he care
and control of a thing”). That is, § 1159 contemplates that a refugee be returned,
temporarily, to the control of DHS because they have the responsibility to inspect
and examine the refugee for admission.
Second, ICE’s own prior guidance interpreting these provisions has
instructed officers that individuals who have not yet applied for adjustment to LPR
status cannot be detained on that basis alone. (2010 ICE Guidance at 2.)
Third, the Supreme Court has interpreted 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A)—which
contains nearly identical “be returned to custody” language—to not authorize
detention. See Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371, 386 (2005) (interpreting the phrase
“be returned to the custody” under § 1182(d)(5)(A) and concluding that “nothing
in this text . . . affirmatively authorizes detention, much less indefinite detention”).
Fourth, interpreting the phrase “be returned to the custody” in § 1159(a)
as mandating detention would lead to an illogical result. Because § 1159(a) makes
refugees ineligible for adjustment until one year after entry, Defendants’
interpretation would subject every refugee to detention, unless USCIS conducted
the inspection and examination precisely at the one-year mark. That outcome is
nonsensical and would cause many unadjusted refugees to celebrate their one-
year anniversary in this country in a jail cell.
U.H.A., 2026 WL 222226, at *8.
CASE 0:26-cv-00417-JRT-DLM Doc. 91 Filed 02/09/26 Page 8 of 20

9
First, § 1159(a)(1)(C) states that refugees will be “returned” to DHS’s custody. If
“custody” implies detention, then the word “return” would imply that refugees were
detained upon their arrival in the country. 	They were not. 	See, e.g., Jerson A.D.G. v.
Bondi, Civ. No. 26-516, 2026 WL 207352, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 27, 2026) (“‘Return’ implies
something which has happened previously.”) 	Instead, refugees are inspected and
admitted into the country without being detained. 	Matter of D-K-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 761,
769 (B.I.A. 2012) (noting “that a refugee who ultimately becomes a lawful permanent
resident will have been ‘admitted’ twice—first, upon conditional admission [under 8
U.S.C. § 1157] and second, upon reinspection and adjustment to permanent resident
status under [8 U.S.C. § 1159.]” (emphasis added)). Because refugees were not detained
when they arrived, it is impossible for them “return” to detention.
Second, the government’s previous interpretations of § 1159(a)(1) support the
conclusion that the term “custody” does not contemplate arrest and detention of
unadjusted refugees. Contemporaneous interpretations of the statute “constitute a body
of experience and informed judgment to which courts and litigants may properly resort
for guidance.” Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 394 (2024); see also Kisor
v. Wilkie, 588 U.S. 558, 594 (2019) (Gorsuch, J., concurring in the judgment) (noting that
“the government’s early, longstanding, and consistent interpretation of a statute” may
be “powerful evidence” of the statute’s original meaning). Following the enactment of
the Refugee Act of 1980, the statute’s implementing regulations contemplated merely
CASE 0:26-cv-00417-JRT-DLM Doc. 91 Filed 02/09/26 Page 9 of 20

10
that a “[n]otice [would] be sent to all refugees after one year to report for an interview.”
Aliens and Nationality; Refugee and Asylum Procedures, 46 Fed. Reg. 45116-01, 45117
(Sept. 10, 1981) (Final Rules); see also Aliens and Nationality; Refugee and Asylum
Procedures, 45 Fed. Reg. 37,392, 37,392 (June 2, 1980) (Interim Regulations) (“Notice will
be sent to all refugees and asylees after one year to report for an interview.”). Nothing
in these early implementing regulations contemplated the arrest or detention of
unadjusted refugees—let alone arrest without a warrant or notice.
That understanding persisted for decades. As recently as 2010, Immigration and
Custom Enforcement (ICE)’s own guidance expressly acknowledged that § 1159 is “not a
proper basis for detaining” refugees who fail to apply for adjustment after one year. U.S.
Immigr. & Customs Enf’t, Memorandum on Detention of Refugees Admitted Under INA §
207 Who Have Failed to Adjust to Lawful Permanent Resident Status (“2010 ICE
Guidance”) at 2 (May 10, 2010).9 Although that guidance was purportedly rescinded in
December 2025,10 the agency’s consistent historical practice is strong evidence that the
plain text of § 1159(a)(1) does not authorize DHS to arrest and detain unadjusted
refugees, absent any ground of removability. Moreover, current federal regulations do
9 (Drake Decl. ¶ 18 & Ex. 16.)
10 (Decl. of Deputy Field Office Director Tauria Rich (“Rich Decl.”) ¶ 6, Jan. 31, 2026, Docket
No. 56-2.) The Court has seen no written document that rescinds the 2010 ICE Guidance. The
Court therefore orders Defendants to submit any such documentation at the preliminary
injunction stage.
CASE 0:26-cv-00417-JRT-DLM Doc. 91 Filed 02/09/26 Page 10 of 20

11
not contemplate the arrest or detention of adjusted refugees, as the regulation governing
the adjustment of status makes no reference to arrest or detention. 	See 8 C.F.R.
§ 209.1(b), (d) (describing the adjustment-of-status process as involving an application
and an interview). Yet, Defendants go so far to say that § 1159(a) “mandates temporary
detention.” 	(Defs.’ Mem. Supp. Mot. Dissolve TRO at 8 (emphasis added).) 	Accepting
that assertion would require the Court to conclude that the executive branch has been
violating § 1159(a)’s purported detention mandate since the Refugee Act of 1980 was
passed because it has failed to arrest and detain adjusted refugees for the past 45 years.
The Court declines to do so. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Defendants’ “early,
longstanding, and consistent interpretation of a statute” is “powerful evidence” that
§ 1159(a) does not permit arrest and detention of unadjusted refugees. See Kisor, 588
U.S. at 594 (Gorsuch, J., concurring in the judgment).
Third, if the Court were to adopt Defendants’ interpretation of § 1159(a)(1), it
would suggest that DHS had the right to detain adjusted refugees indefinitely, because
the statute imposes no time limits on when the required inspection and examination must
occur. It is axiomatic that courts must avoid construing statutes “in a manner that would
render it clearly unconstitutional” when “there is another reasonable interpretation
available.” Edmond v. United States, 520 U.S. 651, 658 (1997). Indeed, courts—including
this 	one—have 	acknowledged 	the 	constitutional 	concerns 	raised 	by 	Defendants’
CASE 0:26-cv-00417-JRT-DLM Doc. 91 Filed 02/09/26 Page 11 of 20

12
expansive interpretation of § 1159(a)(1).11 Because a more reasonable interpretation is
available—for the reasons set forth above and in the Court’s January 28, 2026 Order—
the Court declines to interpret § 1159(a) in a manner that renders it unconstitutional.12
In light of the text, history, and purpose of § 1159(a), the Court maintains that
“‘custody’ is best read to mean ‘responsibility’ or ‘control,’ rather than prolonged
detention.” U.H.A., 2026 WL 222226, at *8 (quoting Custody, Black’s Law Dictionary (12 th
ed. 2024)).13 	Section 1159(a)(1) confers upon DHS the responsibility, to inspect and
11 See, e.g., Jama A.O. v. Bondi, Civ. No. 26-420, 2026 WL 185767, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 23,
2026) (“It is clear that Respondents’ detention of Petitioner [under 8 U.S.C. § 1159(a)] violates
the Due Process Clause because they do not have authority to detain him” because he held
refugee status); U.H.A., 2026 WL 222226, at *8 n.21.
12 The Court intends to hear oral argument on the Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims at the
hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction.
13 To the extent § 1159(a) contemplates a refugee’s involuntary encounter with federal
officials, § 1159’s plain text permits a return to custody (i.e., an interview with DHS) only for a
single purpose—“inspection and examination for admission,” and this statutorily-defined
purpose places guardrails DHS’s authority. See Aleksander B. v. Trump, Civ. No. 26-170, 2026 WL
172435, at *5 (D. Minn. Jan. 22, 2026). 	That is, DHS may not exercise control over a refugee
solely under the authority of § 1159 after it has completed the “inspection and examination for
admission” or if it is seeking to perform some function other than inspection and examination.
The temporary nature of § 1159(a)’s “custody” requirement is further confirmed by the
requirement that any detention be grounded in §§ 1225, 1229(a), or 1231—provisions that, as
the Court previously explained, do not apply here. U.H.A., 2026 WL 222226, at *13. To be sure,
the Court acknowledged in its previous January 28, 2026 order that Ҥ 1159 contemplates that a
refugee be returned, temporarily, to the control of DHS because they have the responsibility to
inspect and examine the refugee for admission.” U.H.A., 2026 WL 222226, at *8. And indeed,
Defendants appear to concede that § 1159 does not permit prolonged or indefinite detention.
(See Defs.’ Mem. Supp. Mot. Dissolve TRO at 9–10, Jan. 31, 2026, Docket No. 56 (“Section 1159
also mandates temporary detention. . . . [and] authorizes DHS to arrest and detain a refugee for
the limited duration of the statutorily mandated inspection and examination.” (emphasis
added)).) 	At this stage of the proceeding, the Court concludes that § 1159 does not permit
indefinite 	detention but, 	rather, 	a brief 	meeting 	for 	the 	purposes of 	“inspection 	and
examination.” 8 U.S.C. § 1159(a)(1)(c); see also Jerson A.D.G. v. Bondi, Civ. No. 26-516, 2026 WL
CASE 0:26-cv-00417-JRT-DLM Doc. 91 Filed 02/09/26 Page 12 of 20

13
examine refugees in order to adjust their status to lawful permanent resident under
§ 1159(a)(2). It does not confer on DHS the authority to arrest and detain them. If DHS
wishes to detain unadjusted refugees, they may do so if §§ 1225, 1229a, or 1231 apply.
Because these three detention provisions do not apply to Plaintiffs and § 1159 does not
provide independent detention authority, the Court finds that Defendants lack the
authority to detain Plaintiffs.
2. 	8 U.S.C. § 1159(a)’s Cross-Reference to § 1225
Defendants also contend that a cross-reference to § 1225(b) in § 1159(a) permits
the detention of the putative class. The argument also fails.
Section 1225 applies to “applicants for admission”—noncitizens who are either
“present in the United States who ha[ve] not been admitted” or “who arrive[ ] in the
United States.” 	8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(1). 	Applicants for admission fall under either
§ 1225(b)(1) or § 1225(b)(2). Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 287 (2018). “Section
1225(b)(1) applies to aliens initially determined to be inadmissible due to fraud,
misrepresentation, or lack of valid documentation” as well as “certain other aliens
designated by the Attorney General in his discretion.” 	Id. (citations omitted). 	Section
1225(b)(2) serves as a “catchall provision that applies to” almost all other applicants for
admission not covered by § 1225(b)(1). Id.
207352, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 27, 2026). Of course, there is a much simpler, fully constitutional
manner of achieving these purposes, the method in use for 45 years: sending a notice to appear.
CASE 0:26-cv-00417-JRT-DLM Doc. 91 Filed 02/09/26 Page 13 of 20

14
The flaw in Defendants’ argument that § 1225(b) permits detention of the putative
class is simple: refugees are not “applicants for admission” under § 1225. 	See, e.g.,
Mohamednoor A. v. Bondi, Civ. No. 26-525, 2026 WL 221926, at*3 (D. Minn. Jan. 28,
2026); Jama A.O. v. Bondi, Civ. No. 26-420, 2026 WL 185767, at *4 (D. Minn. Jan. 23,
2026). 	After 	thorough 	vetting 	and 	verification 	of 	refugee 	status, 	refugees 	are
conditionally admitted when they enter the country, so they cannot be considered
applicants for admission. See Matter of D-K-, 25 I. & N. Dec. at 769. This conclusion is
also consistent with ICE’s own guidance from July 2025, which states that § 1226
(discretionary detention), not § 1225, applies to “[noncitizens] admitted to the United
States.” 	Jose J.O.E. v. Bondi, 797 F. Supp. 3d 957, 963 (Aug. 27, 2025) (quoting Interim
Guidance 	Regarding 	Detention 	Authority 	for 	Applicants 	for 	Admission 	to 	all 	ICE
Employees, July 8, 2025).
In short, § 1159(a)’s cross-reference to § 1225 does not alter the Court’s conclusion
that § 1159(a)—neither alone nor in combination with § 1225(b)—does not authorize the
detention of the putative Class or the Detained Subclass. 	Accordingly, Defendants are
unlikely to succeed on the merits, and Defendants’ arguments provide insufficient
support for dissolving the TRO.
B. 	Threat of Irreparable Harm
The Court previously concluded that Plaintiffs demonstrated a threat of irreparable
harm, noting that Plaintiffs have suffered or face an imminent threat of being (1) arrested
and detained without a warrant, (2) handcuffed and shackled for extended periods, (3)
CASE 0:26-cv-00417-JRT-DLM Doc. 91 Filed 02/09/26 Page 14 of 20

15
hurriedly transported across the country, and (4) prevented from communicating with
family, counsel, or their community. U.H.A., 2026 WL 222226, at *8–9. In addition, under
Defendants’ interpretation of § 1159, there appears to be no limit on the length of
detention that could be imposed on unadjusted refugees. Defendants do not appear to
contest the Court’s conclusion that Plaintiffs have demonstrated a threat of irreparable
harm—for good reason. 	The second Dataphase factor therefore continues to strongly
weigh in favor of Plaintiffs and cuts against the dissolution of the TRO.
C. 	Balance of Harms and Public Interest
The third and fourth Dataphase factors—balance of the harms and the public
interest—merge when the Government is a party. Morehouse Enters., LLC v. Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives, 78 F.4th 1011, 1019 (8 th Cir. 2023) (citing Nken
v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435 (2009)). Defendants argue that the balance-of-harm and the
public interest factors weigh in favor of Defendants because the TRO itself inflicts
irreparable injury on Defendants. (Defs.’ Mem. Supp. Mot. Dissolve TRO at 16.) It is true
that “[a]ny time a State is enjoined by a court from effectuating statutes enacted by
representatives of its people, it suffers a form of irreparable injury.” Trump v. CASA, 606
U.S. 831, 861 (2025) (quotation omitted). But it is also true that the Government has “no
public interest in the perpetuation of unlawful agency action.” Missouri v. Trump, 128
F.4th 979, 997 (8 th Cir. 2025) (quoting League of Women Voters of U.S. v. Newby, 838 F.3d
1, 12 (D.C. Cir. 2016)). 	Given the unlawfulness of DHS’s Refugee Detention Policy, the
public interest is not served by allowing Defendants to carry out such policy. Indeed, the
CASE 0:26-cv-00417-JRT-DLM Doc. 91 Filed 02/09/26 Page 15 of 20

16
public interest in protecting refugee rights will be furthered by preserving the status quo.
Therefore, both the balance-of-harm and the public interest factors continue to weigh in
favor of granting temporary relief.
D. 	Scope of Relief
Defendants argue that the TRO is overbroad for three reasons. First, Defendants
contend that the TRO enjoins Defendants from “returning” refugees to DHS’s custody
under 8 U.S.C. § 1159(a), “for even a minute.” (Defs.’ Mem. Supp. Mot. Dissolve TRO at
17.) The Court disagrees. The TRO does not categorically bar the arrest of refugees; it
bars arrest solely on the basis that a refugee has not yet had their status adjusted to LPR
status. The TRO likewise does not preclude Defendants from inspecting and examining
unadjusted refugees by issuing a notice that requires them to appear for an interview.
See 8 C.F.R. § 209.1(b), (d).
Second, Defendants argue that the Eighth Circuit’s recent decision in Tincher v.
Noem, No. 26-1105, 2026 WL 194768 (8 th Cir. Jan. 26, 2026), forecloses temporary class-
wide relief. 	Quite the contrary. 	In Tincher, the Eighth Circuit stayed a district court’s
preliminary injunction that barred federal officials from retaliating against protesters
opposing the government’s immigration-enforcement initiative, Operation Metro Surge.
Id. at *1. The Eighth Circuit concluded that a stay was warranted because the putative
class had “no chance of getting certified” and because the injunction was impermissibly
vague. Id. The Court finds Tincher to be readily distinguishable. Here, the putative class
CASE 0:26-cv-00417-JRT-DLM Doc. 91 Filed 02/09/26 Page 16 of 20

17
and subclass are far more likely to be certified for the reasons set forth in the TRO Order.
See U.H.A., 2026 WL 222226, at *10–12 (analyzing the propriety of temporary class-wide
relief under Rule 23). 	Indeed, Tincher itself acknowledged that “[c]ourts may issue
temporary relief to a putative class.” Tincher, 2026 WL 194768, at *1 (quoting A.A.R.P. v.
Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 98 (2025)). Accordingly, the Court does not read Tincher to foreclose
the putative class-wide relief granted here.
Third, Defendants assert that the Court’s TRO violates 8 U.S.C § 1252(f)(1), which
places limitations on the Court’s authority to issue injunctive relief. 8 U.S.C § 1252(f)(1)
provides that “no court (other than the Supreme Court) shall have jurisdiction or authority
to enjoin or restrain the operation of the provisions of part IV of this subchapter [8 U.S.C
§§ 1221–1232] . . . .” Defendants concede—as they must—that § 1159(a) is not included
in the relevant statutes cited in § 1252(f)(1). 	(Defs.’ Mem. Supp. Mot. Dissolve TRO at
19.) 	Undeterred, Defendants argue that the TRO nevertheless violates § 1252(f)(1)
because § 1159(a) cross-references § 1225, which is included in part IV. The Court rejects
Defendants’ claim. 	Defendants’ proposition contradicts the plain meaning of the
§ 1252(f)(1). Moreover, as previously discussed, § 1225 does not apply to Plaintiffs.14
14 Additionally, § 1252(f)(1) in no way prohibits courts from setting aside unlawful agency
actions under APA, which forms the basis of some of Plaintiffs’ claims. See Garland v. Aleman
Gonzalez, 596 U.S. 543, 571 (2022) (Sotomayor, J., concurring in part) (“[T]he Court does not
purport to hold that § 1252(f)(1) affects courts’ ability to ‘hold unlawful and set aside agency
action, findings, and conclusions’ under the Administrative Procedure Act.” (citing 5 U.S.C
§ 706(2)).
CASE 0:26-cv-00417-JRT-DLM Doc. 91 Filed 02/09/26 Page 17 of 20

18
Because Court is 	unpersuaded by 	Defendants’ arguments 	that the 	TRO is
overbroad, the scope of the TRO will remain unchanged.
E. 	Stay Pending Appeal
Finally, Defendants’ request that the TRO be stayed pending appeal if the Court
denies their motion to dissolve the TRO. 	Courts consider four factors when assessing
whether to stay a party’s motion pending appeal: “(1) whether the stay applicant has
made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant
will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially
injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest
lies.” Nken, 556 U.S. at 434 (citation omitted). In light of the “substantial overlap” with
the Dataphase factors and the Court’s prior conclusions that the Dataphase factors
weighed in favor of granting temporary relief, a stay is not warranted. See id. Defendants’
request for a stay pending appeal will therefore be denied.
CONCLUSION
Defendants have failed to show that conditions that warranted the TRO are no
longer present. 	After careful consideration of the limited record before the Court, the
Court finds that the Dataphase factors continue to weigh in favor of granting Plaintiffs
temporary relief. 	Accordingly, the TRO is necessary to preserve the status quo and to
protect Plaintiffs from irreparable harm.
It remains important to note that this case involves only the adjustment of status
of refugees who reside in Minnesota. 	It does not apply beyond the state’s borders.
CASE 0:26-cv-00417-JRT-DLM Doc. 91 Filed 02/09/26 Page 18 of 20

19
Refugees are thoroughly vetted and examined before admission to the United States and
once admitted, they are provided assistance to assimilate in communities across the
country. The one-year check-in is just that—an inspection. There is no requirement that
refugees be re-vetted. 	And it appears to the Court that unadjusted refugees have no
incentive to avoid inspection, as completing the check-in is a prerequisite to obtaining
lawful permanent resident status. Mandatory detention, in addition to being practically
impossible given the number of refugees awaiting inspection and adjustment, seems
clearly to be a solution in search of a problem. The swift reinterpretation of long held and
consistently understood applications of the law raises serious constitutional questions
that must be addressed by this Court.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. 	Defendants’ Motion to Dissolve the Temporary Restraining Order (Docket No. [55])
is DENIED.
2. 	Defendants’ alternative request for a stay of the Temporary Restraining Order
pending appeal (Docket No. [55]) is DENIED.
3. 	Plaintiffs’ request for discovery is GRANTED, as follows: Defendants shall produce
and file under seal within 3 days all documents cited or relied on in Defendants’
Motion to Dissolve the Temporary Restraining Order (Docket No. [55]), including
CASE 0:26-cv-00417-JRT-DLM Doc. 91 Filed 02/09/26 Page 19 of 20

20
the ICE rescission memorandum regarding 8 U.S.C. § 1159, documents related to
Defendants’ 	re-vetting 	and 	screening 	process, 	and 	documents 	related 	to
Operation PARRIS.
4. 	Defendants are ordered to provide a status update on the return and release of
Members of the putative Detained Subclass by 5:00 p.m. on February 11, 2026.
5. 	Defendants are ordered to comply with Local Rule 7.1(a) before filing a motion.
The District of Minnesota requires parties to meet and confer, before filing a
motion, in a good-faith effort to resolve the issues raised in the motion.
DATED: February 9, 2026 	_____/s/ John R. Tunheim ___
at Minneapolis, Minnesota. 	JOHN R. TUNHEIM
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-00417-JRT-DLM Doc. 91 Filed 02/09/26 Page 20 of 20