Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Napoleon E.,
Petitioner,
v.
Pamela Bondi, Attorney General; Kristi
Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; Todd M. Lyons, Acting
Director of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; David Easterwood, Acting
Director, St. Paul Field Office Immigration
and Customs Enforcement; and Eric
Tollefson, Sheriff of Kandiyohi County Jail,
Respondents.
File No. 26-cv-948 (ECT/DLM)
OPINION AND ORDER
________________________________________________________________________
Rachel Petersen, Minneapolis, MN, for Petitioner Napoleon E.
Ana H. Voss and Friedrich A.P. Siekert, United States Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis,
MN, for Respondents Pamela Bondi, Kristi Noem, Todd M. Lyons, and David Easterwood.
Petitioner Napoleon E. is a citizen of El Salvador who has lived in the United States
since January 2022, when he entered the country without inspection. 	Pet. [ECF No. 1]
¶¶ 13, 15. 	Napoleon “has no criminal history in the United States or anywhere else.” Id.
¶ 14. On January 12, 2026, Napoleon was arrested by “Federal officers” in Brooklyn Park,
Minnesota, as part of “Operation Metro Surge.” 	Id. ¶¶ 17, 21. 	Napoleon was detained
“without a warrant.” Id. ¶ 17. Napoleon “may have been served with a Notice to Appear
CASE 0:26-cv-00948-ECT-DLM Doc. 7 Filed 02/05/26 Page 1 of 6

2
. . . initiating [r]emoval [p]roceedings.” Id. ¶ 16. Respondents1 do not dispute the Petition’s
facts. See ECF No. 5 at 1.
Napoleon challenges his detention under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pet. ¶ 2. He claims he
has been wrongly classified as a § 1225(b)(2) detainee (whose detention is mandatory)
rather than a § 1226(a) detainee (whose detention is discretionary and who is entitled to a
bond hearing). 	Pet. ¶¶ 31–36; see Jose J.O.E. v. Bondi, 797 F. Supp. 3d 957, 961–62
(D. Minn. 	2025) 	(explaining 	legal 	framework). 	According 	to 	Napoleon, 	that
misclassification and denial of a bond hearing violate his right to due process under the
Fifth Amendment, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Administrative Procedure
Act. 	See Pet. ¶¶ 37–53. 	Napoleon seeks issuance of a writ of habeas corpus requiring
Respondents to release him unless they provide bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a); an
order enjoining his transfer outside of this District during the pendency of his Petition, and
if he has been transferred outside of Minnesota, directing that he be transported back to
Minnesota and released here; issuance of an order of release including conditions to ensure
Napoleon’s safety, advance notice to counsel, and a return of Napoleon’s personal effects;
issuance of an order of release that enjoins respondents from implementing any condition
of release; reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and “any other and further relief that this
Court may deem just and proper.” Pet. at 16.
1 	When used in this Order, “Respondents” refers to the federal officials named as
Respondents. Respondent Eric Tollefson, the Kandiyohi County Sheriff, has not appeared
in these proceedings. See Dkt.
CASE 0:26-cv-00948-ECT-DLM Doc. 7 Filed 02/05/26 Page 2 of 6

3
Respondents argue that Napoleon is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225(b)(2). See ECF No. 5 at 1–13. This raises an issue of statutory interpretation2 that
courts in this District have repeatedly considered and rejected, and it will be rejected here
as well.
Napoleon has shown he has been misclassified under § 1225(b)(2) rather than
§ 1226(a). 	As courts have explained, the former statute applies to applicants “seeking
admission,” and the latter to “aliens already in the country.” 	8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A);
Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 289 (2018) (construing 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and (c));
see Francisco T. v. Bondi, 797 F. Supp. 3d 970, 974–76 (D. Minn. 2025); Belsai D.S. v.
Bondi, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, No. 25-cv-3682 (KMM/EMB), 2025 WL 2802947, at *6–7 (D.
Minn. Oct. 1, 2025); Eliseo A.A. v. Olson, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, No. 25-cv-3381 (JWB/DJF),
2025 WL 2886729, at *2–4 (D. Minn. Oct. 8, 2025); Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-3741
(JRT/SGE), 2025 WL 2976539, at *5–7 (D. Minn. Oct. 21, 2025), appeal filed, No. 25-
3248 (8th Cir. Nov. 10, 2025); Andres R.E. v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-3946 (NEB/DLM), 2025
WL 3146312, at *2–3 (D. Minn. Nov. 4, 2025); E.M. v. Noem, 25-cv-3975 (SRN/DTS),
2025 WL 3157839, at *4–8 (D. Minn. Nov. 12, 2025); Santos M.C. v. Olson, No. 25-cv-
4264 (PJS/DJF), 2025 WL 3281787, at *2–3 (D. Minn. Nov. 25, 2025). As of this writing,
only one federal court of appeals has ruled on the question, and it reached the same
2 	To the extent Respondents challenge this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction to
consider Napoleon’s Petition, consistent with previous rulings on this issue, I find that the
jurisdiction-stripping provisions of § 1252(a)(5), (b)(9), and (g) do not apply to “the narrow
question whether a noncitizen is subject to discretionary detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226
or mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2).” 	Fernando F.P.D. v. Brott, No. 25-cv-4455
(ECT/ECW), 2025 WL 3675151, at *2 (D. Minn. Dec. 17, 2025) (citing cases).
CASE 0:26-cv-00948-ECT-DLM Doc. 7 Filed 02/05/26 Page 3 of 6

4
conclusion. See Castañon-Nava v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048, (7th Cir.
2025). Napoleon has lived in the United States for more than four years. Pet. ¶ 13. His
detention falls under § 1226(a) and not § 1225(b)(2).3
The final issue is the appropriate remedy. 	Section 1226 provides that “[o]n a
warrant issued by the Attorney General, an alien may be arrested and detained.”
8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) (emphasis added). 	“Issuance of a warrant is a necessary condition to
justify 	discretionary 	detention 	under 	section 	1226(a).” 	Chogllo 	Chafla 	v. 	Scott,
--- F. Supp. 3d ---, No. 2:25-cv-00437, 2025 WL 2688541, at *11 (D. Me. Sep. 21, 2025),
appeal filed (Nov. 7, 2025). 	“[I]t follows that absent a warrant a noncitizen may not be
arrested 	and 	detained 	under 	section 	1226(a).” 	Id. 	(emphasis 	in 	original); 	accord
Chiliquinga Yumbillo v. Stamper, No. 2:25-cv-00479, 2025 WL 2783642, at *5 (D. Me.
Sep. 30, 2025); J.A.C.P. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01354, 2025 WL 3013328, at *8 (E.D.
Cal. Oct. 27, 2025); see also Florida v. United States, 660 F. Supp. 3d 1239, 1276 (N.D.
Fla. 2023) (stating § 1226 “is not even triggered unless an arrest warrant is issued” and that
“[i]f [an] alien has not been arrested on a warrant, then the subsequent provisions giving
the Attorney General discretion to detain or release ‘the arrested alien’ are likewise not
triggered”), appeal dismissed, 2023 WL 5212561 (11th Cir. July 11, 2023). 	Here, the
Petition alleges that Napoleon was arrested without a warrant. 	Pet. ¶ 17. 	Respondents
were ordered to include in their answer “[w]hether the absence of a warrant preceding
[Napoleon’s] arrest necessitates [Napoleon’s] immediate release.” 	See ECF No. 3 at 2.
3 	Respondents do not argue that Napoleon is subject to mandatory detention pursuant
to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), or that any other statutory scheme other than that raised in the
Petition would apply to Napoleon’s detention. See ECF No. 5.
CASE 0:26-cv-00948-ECT-DLM Doc. 7 Filed 02/05/26 Page 4 of 6

5
Respondents have not produced a warrant, nor have they advanced any specific argument
that Napoleon’s release is an unwarranted remedy. See ECF No. 5.
“[R]elease is an available and appropriate remedy” for “detention that lacks a lawful
predicate.” 	Order on Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus at 6, Vedat C. v. Bondi, No.
25-cv-4642 (JWB/DTS) (D. Minn. Dec. 19, 2025), ECF No. 9 (citing Munaf v. Geren,
553 U.S. 674, 693 (2008)). 	“Where the record shows Respondents have not identified a
valid statutory basis for detention in the first place, the remedy is not to supply one through
further proceedings.” 	Id.; see Chogllo Chafla, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2025 WL 2688541, at
*11 (“Since the Government did not comply with the plain language of section 1226(a),
[petitioners’] immediate release is justified.”); J.A.C.P., 2025 WL 3013328, at *8 (same);
Chiliquinga Yumbillo, 2025 WL 2783642, at *5 (reaching same conclusion); see also
Munaf, 553 U.S. at 693 (“Habeas is at its core a remedy for unlawful executive detention.
The typical remedy for such detention is, of course, release.” (citation modified)).4
ORDER
Therefore, based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings
herein, IT IS ORDERED THAT Petitioner Napoleon’s Verified Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus [ECF No. 1] is GRANTED as follows:
1. 	Petitioner is not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
2. 	Respondents shall release Petitioner from custody as follows:
4 	The resolution of this statutory-interpretation question in Napoleon’s favor makes it
unnecessary to address the Petition’s remaining grounds.
CASE 0:26-cv-00948-ECT-DLM Doc. 7 Filed 02/05/26 Page 5 of 6

6
a. 	If Petitioner remains detained in Minnesota, Respondents shall release
Petitioner from custody as soon as practicable, but not later than 48 hours after entry of this
Order.
b. 	If Petitioner has been moved outside of Minnesota, as soon as
practicable, but not later than 72 hours after entry of this Order, Respondents shall return
Petitioner to Minnesota and then release Petitioner from custody.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: February 5, 2026, at 4:20 p.m. 	s/ Eric C. Tostrud
Eric C. Tostrud
United States District Court
CASE 0:26-cv-00948-ECT-DLM Doc. 7 Filed 02/05/26 Page 6 of 6