Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Liliana Zaragoza, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA LAW SCHOOL, RACIAL
JUSTICE LAW CLINIC, 229 Nineteenth Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN
55455, for Petitioner.
Anthony Barrows and David W. Fuller, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE,
300 	South 	Fourth 	Street, 	Suite 	600, 	Minneapolis, 	MN 	55415 	for
Respondents.
Petitioner Felipe S.R. was arrested and detained by United States Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) on December 13, 2025. Felipe S.R. petitions for a writ of
FELIPE S.R.,
Petitioner,
v.
PAMELA BONDI, United States Attorney
General;
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security;
TODD 	M. 	LYONS, 	Acting 	Director,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
and
DAVID EASTERWOOD, Acting Director, St.
Paul Field Office, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement;
Respondents.
Civil No. 26-1563 (JRT/DLM)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS
CASE 0:26-cv-01563-JRT-DLM Doc. 6 Filed 02/26/26 Page 1 of 5

-2-
habeas corpus, arguing that he is being detained unlawfully. Because the Court concludes
that Felipe S.R.’s detention is unlawful, the Court will grant his petition for writ of habeas
corpus and order that he be released from custody.
BACKGROUND
Felipe S.R. is a citizen of Mexico and a resident of Minneapolis, Minnesota.
(Verified Pet. Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Pet.”) ¶ 13, Feb. 20, 2026, Docket No. 1.) He has
lived in the United States since February 2021, and he is not subject to a final order for
removal. (Id. ¶ 14.)
On December 13, 2025, ten to twelve masked ICE agents descended upon Felipe
S.R. and arrested him without a warrant while he was walking outside of a store. 	(Id.
¶ 17.) One agent was driving an unmarked vehicle and rammed into Felipe S.R. with their
vehicle. (Id.) Agents grabbed Felipe S.R., violently pushed and shoved him, repeatedly hit
him, and threatened to taze him. (Id.) He was taken into custody and is being held at an
unknown location by an unknown custodian. (Id. ¶ 21.) ICE’s online detainee locator tool
states “Call ICE for Details.” (Id. ¶ 22.) Petitioner’s counsel’s attempts to contact ICE to
determine Petitioner’s location have been unsuccessful. (Id. ¶ 23.)
On February 20, 2026, Felipe S.R. filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus,
challenging the lawfulness of his detention. (Docket No. 1.) On February 21, 2026, the
Court issued an order (1) enjoining Respondents from transferring Petitioner outside the
District of Minnesota pending a ruling on his habeas petition or returning Petitioner to
CASE 0:26-cv-01563-JRT-DLM Doc. 6 Filed 02/26/26 Page 2 of 5

-3-
Minnesota if he had already been removed, and (2) directing Respondents to file an
answer by February 24, 2026. (Docket No. 3.) Respondents timely filed their response.
DISCUSSION
Respondents argue that Felipe S.R. is subject to mandatory detention under 8
U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). After thorough review of the parties’ filings, the Court concludes that
the legal issues presented by Felipe S.R.’s habeas petition are subject to the same analysis
the Court recently employed in Herrera Avila v. Bondi, Civ. No. 25-3741, 2025 WL 2976539
(D. Minn. Oct. 21, 2025) and Romero Santuario v. Bondi, Civ. No. 25-4296, 2025 WL
3469577 (D. Minn, Dec. 2, 2025). The factual record before the Court shows that Felipe
S.R. was arrested while already in the United States. For the same reasons articulated in
Herrera Avila and Romero Santuario, the Court concludes that it possesses jurisdiction
over this petition, and that Felipe S.R.’s detention is not authorized by § 1225(b)(2).1
The Court therefore turns to the proper remedy. Where, as here, (1) Respondents
erroneously assert that a detainee is being held pursuant to § 1225(b)(2), and (2)
Respondents have not produced a warrant, as is required to effectuate an arrest pursuant
to § 1226(a), the appropriate remedy is release from custody. 	See, e.g., Ahmed M. v.
Bondi, Civ. No. 25-4711, 2026 WL 25627, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 5, 2026); Lauro M. v. Bondi,
1 Respondents do not argue that Petitioner’s possible detention outside of Minnesota
renders venue in this District improper, and therefore the Court considers that issue to be
waived. 	See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 451 (D. Minn. 2004) (Kennedy, J., concurring)
(recognizing the default district-of-confinement rule “is best understood as a question of
personal jurisdiction or venue”).
CASE 0:26-cv-01563-JRT-DLM Doc. 6 Filed 02/26/26 Page 3 of 5

-4-
Civ. No. 26-134, 2026 WL 115022, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 15, 2026); cf. 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.”).
Accordingly, the Court will grant Felipe S.R.’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and
order that he be released from custody.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. 	Petitioner Felipe S.R.’s Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Docket No. [1])
is GRANTED, as follows:
a. 	Petitioner 	is 	not 	subject 	to 	mandatory 	detention 	under 	8 	U.S.C.
§ 1225(b)(2).
b. 	If Petitioner is being detained outside of Minnesota, Respondents shall
TRANSPORT Petitioner to Minnesota and RELEASE Petitioner from custody
immediately. Petitioner’s release in Minnesota must occur no later than 48
hours after the filing of this Order.
c. 	If Petitioner is being detained in Minnesota, Respondents shall RELEASE
Petitioner from custody as soon as practicable, and no later than 48 hours
from the filing of this Order.
d. 	Given the severe weather conditions in Minnesota, Respondents are
ORDERED to coordinate with Petitioner’s counsel to ensure that upon
CASE 0:26-cv-01563-JRT-DLM Doc. 6 Filed 02/26/26 Page 4 of 5

-5-
Petitioner’s release, they are not left outside in dangerous cold. 	It is
preferable to release Petitioner to counsel to ensure humane treatment.
e. 	Respondents must release Petitioner with all personal effects, such as
driver’s 	licenses, 	passports, 	or 	immigration 	documents, 	and 	without
conditions such as location tracking devices.
f. 	Respondents are ENJOINED from re-detaining Petitioner under this same
statutory theory, absent materially changed circumstances.
g. 	The parties shall provide the Court with a status update concerning the
status of Petitioner’s release by no later than 5:00 p.m. on March 1, 2026.
Further, 	the 	parties 	shall 	advise 	the 	Court 	whether 	any 	additional
proceedings in this matter are required and submit any proposals for the
scope of further litigation.
DATED: February 26, 2026 	_____/s/ John R. Tunheim ____
at Minneapolis, Minnesota. 	JOHN R. TUNHEIM
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-01563-JRT-DLM Doc. 6 Filed 02/26/26 Page 5 of 5