Moctezuma Macias v. Henkey et al

ORDER - 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
EDGAR AGUSTIN MOCTEZUMA
MACIAS,
Petitioner,
v.
BRIAN HENKEY, Field Office
Director of Enforcement and Removal
Operations, Salt Lake City Field Office,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
KENNETH PORTER, Acting Director
of the Boise U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement Field Sub-Office;
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security;
PAMELA BONDI, U.S. Attorney
General; MICHAEL
HOLLINGSHEAD, Sheriff of Elmore
County,
Respondents.
Case No. 1:25-cv-00741-BLW
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER
INTRODUCTION
Before the Court is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Petitioner
Edgar Moctezuma Macias (Dkt. 1). For the reasons described below, the Court
grants the Petition.
Case 1:25-cv-00741-BLW Document 8 Filed 01/27/26 Page 1 of 5

ORDER - 2
BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a national of Mexico who has lived in the United States since
1997. Dkt. 1 ¶ 17. He currently resides in Caldwell, Idaho, and has three U.S.
citizen children and no criminal history. Id. He was taken into custody on
December 29, 2025, and was detained at the Elmore County Detention Center in
Mountain Home, Idaho. Id. ¶¶ 1, 17. He filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
on December 31, 2025. On January 2, 2026, the Court imposed a temporary
restraining order (TRO) requiring Respondents to release Petitioner pending the
resolution of his Petition. On January 13, 2026, the Court vacated the TRO to
correct a procedural error but reimposed it with substantively similar conditions.
LEGAL STANDARD
The Constitution guarantees that the writ of habeas corpus is “available to
every individual detained within the United States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S.
507, 525 (2004) (citing U.S. Const., Art. I, § 9, cl. 2). For most of the nation’s
history, habeas review “has remained a critical check on the Executive, ensuring
that it does not detain individuals except in accordance with law.” Id. (quotation
omitted).
ANALYSIS
As the Court previously noted, the present Petition is one of many recent
challenges to a policy shift by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and
Case 1:25-cv-00741-BLW Document 8 Filed 01/27/26 Page 2 of 5

ORDER - 3
Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) regarding the application of 8
U.S.C. § 1225. See Dkt. 4 at 2-8. Because the Court has already addressed this
issue numerous times, the analysis here will be brief. See, e.g., Cordero Esparza v,
Knight, 1:25-cv-00601-BLW, 2025 WL 3228282 (D. Idaho Nov. 19, 2025).
Historically, noncitizens potentially subject to immigration detention could
be detained under two possible statutes. Section 1225 applied to noncitizens
“seeking admission into the country”— those apprehended at or near the border—
and did not allow for a bond hearing. But noncitizens already established in the
United States were detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226, which provides for
discretionary detention with bond hearings to allow the release of detainees who do
not pose a danger to the community or flight risk. See Hernandez v. Sessions, 872
F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2017). This statutory scheme reflects a longstanding distinction
between noncitizens who reside in the United States and those who have not yet
entered. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001).
In July 2025, DHS attempted to eliminate this distinction. On July 8, 2025,
ICE issued “Interim Guidance Regarding Detention Authority for Applicants for
Admission,” instructing that all persons who entered without inspection be subject
to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A), regardless of when they were
apprehended or how long they have resided in the United States. On September 5,
2025, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) issued a precedential decision in
Case 1:25-cv-00741-BLW Document 8 Filed 01/27/26 Page 3 of 5

ORDER - 4
Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216 (BIA 2025), holding that
immigration judges lack authority to conduct bond hearings for individuals who
entered without admission, as they are deemed “applicants for admission” subject
to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A). Since then, district courts across the
country have found that this interpretation violates the Immigration and Nationality
Act and the constitutional due process rights of detained immigrants. See, e.g.,
Alvarez Ortiz v. Freden, No. 25-CV-960, 2025 WL 3085032, at *10 (W.D.N.Y.
Nov. 4, 2025); Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz, No. 25-cv-12664, 2025 WL 2809996
(D. Mass. Oct. 3, 2025).
This Court has considered a number of substantively identical habeas
petitions in recent months and has repeatedly rejected Respondents’ reading of
§ 1225. Respondents have not offered any new arguments here, and there is no
need here to restate the Court’s reasoning, which is laid out at length in cases such
as Quijada Cordoba v. Knight, 1:25-cv-00605, 2025 WL 3228945 (D. Idaho Nov.
19, 2025). The Court again finds that Petitioner’s mandatory detention under
§ 1225 is unlawful.
Petitioner’s release remains the appropriate remedy. He has resided in the
United States for nearly 30 years, has no criminal record, and has U.S. citizen
children. Respondents do not provide any facts whatsoever to justify his detention,
Case 1:25-cv-00741-BLW Document 8 Filed 01/27/26 Page 4 of 5

ORDER - 5
making a bond hearing unnecessary to establish whether he poses a safety risk or
flight risk.
ORDER
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for a
Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. 1) is GRANTED.
DATED: January 27, 2026
_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
U.S. District Court Judge
Case 1:25-cv-00741-BLW Document 8 Filed 01/27/26 Page 5 of 5