Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Marlon S.T.L.,
Petitioner,
v.
Pamela Bondi, in her official capacity as
Attorney General of the United States;
Kristi Noem, in her official capacity as
Secretary of the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; Todd Lyons, in his
official capacity as Acting Director of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
and David Easterwood, in his official
capacity as Acting Director, St. Paul Field
Office, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement,
Respondents.
Civil No. 26-665 (DWF/LIB)
MEMORANDUM
OPINION AND ORDER
INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Marlon S.T.L.’s petition for a writ of
habeas corpus alleging that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution and laws of
the United States (the “Petition”). (Doc. No. 1.) Respondents oppose. (Doc. No. 4.) For
the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the Petition and orders Respondents to
immediately release Petitioner.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a citizen of Ecuador who has resided in the United States since May
of 2024. (Doc. No. 1 ¶¶ 3, 46.) Petitioner was previously apprehended by immigration
CASE 0:26-cv-00665-DWF-LIB Doc. 6 Filed 01/30/26 Page 1 of 5

2
authorities within the United States and was released subject to an order for supervision.
(Id.) Petitioner has not committed a crime or violated the conditions of his release. (Id.)
Petitioner also filed an asylum application that is now pending in the immigration court.
(Id.) Petitioner has been granted employment authorization by the Department of
Homeland Security to work lawfully in the United States. (Id.) Petitioner also has a
heart condition, had open heart surgery in 2020, and takes daily heart thinner medication.
(Id. ¶ 47.)
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents detained Petitioner on
January 26, 2026, in Minneapolis, Minnesota, where Petitioner was living. (Id. ¶ 4.) He
is currently being detained at Fort Snelling in Minnesota. (Id. ¶¶ 5, 9, 48.)
Petitioner filed the Petition on January 26, 2026. (Id. at 19.) Petitioner asserts that
his detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) is unlawful because it violates due process and
the Immigration and Nationality Act. (Id. ¶¶ 7, 50-68.) Petitioner requests release from
detention or an order requiring Respondents to provide him with a bond hearing under
8 U.S.C. § 1226 within seven days, and that his personal property and documents be
returned to him. (Id. at 18-19.) On January 26, 2026, the Court ordered Respondents to
answer the Petition on or before January 29, 2026, at 12:00 p.m. CT, and enjoined
Respondents from moving Petitioner from this District pending further order. (Doc.
No. 3.) Respondents timely filed a form response. (Doc. No. 4.)
DISCUSSION
A district court may provide habeas relief to a person who is being detained in
violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). That
CASE 0:26-cv-00665-DWF-LIB Doc. 6 Filed 01/30/26 Page 2 of 5

3
authority includes jurisdiction to hear habeas challenges to immigration-related detention.
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001); Deng Chol A. v. Barr, 455 F. Supp. 3d 896,
900-01 (D. Minn. 2020). The burden is on the petitioner to prove illegal detention by a
preponderance of the evidence. See Mohammed H. v. Trump, 786 F. Supp. 3d 1149,
1154 (D. Minn. 2025).
Respondents submitted a form response, arguing that Petitioner is subject to
mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), and pointing the Court to their
arguments in a pending Eighth Circuit case: Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-3248. (See Doc.
No. 4.) As this Court has explained on multiple occasions, Respondents’ interpretation of
§ 1225 contradicts the plain language of the statute. See Jose L.M.S. v. Bondi, No. 26-cv-
474, 2026 WL 185066, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 25, 2026); Omar E.F.G. v. Bondi, No. 26-cv-
451, 2026 WL 184571, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 23, 2026); Victor S.M. v. Noem, No. 26-cv-
400, 2026 WL 161445, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 21, 2026). 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).
Section 1226 applies where § 1225 is inapplicable and provides immigration judges with
the discretion to grant release on bond to noncitizens subject to removal proceedings. See
id. § 1226(a).
Here, Petitioner is not an arriving noncitizen because he has been in the United
States for nearly two years and has a pending asylum application. See Jennings v.
Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 289 (2018) (noting that § 1226(a) applies to “certain aliens
CASE 0:26-cv-00665-DWF-LIB Doc. 6 Filed 01/30/26 Page 3 of 5

4
already in the country”). Petitioner is therefore subject to the discretionary bond
provisions of § 1226(a), not the mandatory bond provisions of § 1225(b)(2).
Having found that Petitioner is being detained unlawfully, the question becomes
the correct remedy. A detainee being held pursuant to § 1226(a), as Petitioner is here,
must have been served an arrest warrant prior to detainment. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a); see also
Ahmed M. v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-4711, 2026 WL 25627, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 5, 2026)
(collecting cases). There is no evidence that Respondents had a warrant to arrest
Petitioner. And after being given the opportunity to explain the true cause of Petitioner’s
detainment and provide documents of such (see Doc. No. 3), Respondents did not do so,
(see Doc. No. 4). The Court therefore concludes that Petitioner was arrested without a
warrant. The remedy for a warrantless arrest is immediate release. Munaf v. Geren,
553 U.S. 674, 693 (2008) (“Habeas is at its core a remedy for unlawful executive
detention. The typical remedy for such detention is, of course, release.” (citation
omitted)).
ORDER
Based on the foregoing and the record in this case, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
that:
1. 	Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. [1]) is
GRANTED.
2. 	The Court DECLARES that Petitioner’s current detention is unlawful
under the Constitution and laws of the United States.
CASE 0:26-cv-00665-DWF-LIB Doc. 6 Filed 01/30/26 Page 4 of 5

5
3. 	Respondents are ORDERED to release Petitioner from custody
immediately.
4. 	Within three (3) days of the date of this Order, the Government shall
provide the Court with a status update confirming Petitioner’s release.
5. 	Respondents are directed to release Petitioner with all personal documents
and belongings, such as his driver’s license, employment authorization, passport other
immigration documents, and cell phone, and without conditions such as ankle monitors or
tracking devices.
6. 	Respondents are ENJOINED from re-detaining Petitioner under this same
statutory theory, absent materially changed circumstances.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: January 30, 2026 	s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-00665-DWF-LIB Doc. 6 Filed 01/30/26 Page 5 of 5