Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Evan 	J. 	Mulholland, 	MINNESOTA 	CENTER 	FOR 	ENVIRONMENTAL
ADVOCACY, 1919 University Avenue West, Suite 515, St. Paul, MN 55104,
for Petitioner.
David W. Fuller and Trevor Brown, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE,
300 	South 	Fourth 	Street, 	Suite 	600, 	Minneapolis, 	MN 	55415, 	for
Respondents.
Petitioner Aureliano M.S. was arrested and detained by United States Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) on March 12, 2026. Aureliano M.S. petitions for a writ
AURELIANO M.S.,
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;
DAVID EASTERWOOD, Acting Director, St.
Paul Field Office, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; and
JOEL BROTT, Sheriff of Sherburne County,
Respondents.
Civil No. 26-1974 (JRT/DJF)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS
CASE 0:26-cv-01974-JRT-DJF Doc. 8 Filed 04/13/26 Page 1 of 6

-2-
of habeas corpus, arguing that he is being detained unlawfully. 	Because the Court
concludes that Aureliano M.S.’s detention is unlawful, the Court will grant his petition for
writ of habeas corpus and order that he be released from custody.
BACKGROUND
Aureliano M.S. is a citizen of Mexico and a resident of St. Cloud, Minnesota.
(Verified Pet. Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Pet.”) ¶ 13, Mar. 20, 2026, Docket No. 1.) He has
lived in the United States since December 2022, and he is not subject to a final order for
removal. 	(Id. ¶¶ 13–14.) 	On March 12, 2026, ICE agents arrested Aureliano M.S. 	(Id.
¶ 15.) He was taken into custody and is being detained at the Sherburne County Jail. (Id.
¶ 18.)
On March 20, 2026, Aureliano M.S. filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus,
challenging the lawfulness of his detention. 	(Id.) 	Petitioner challenged his detention
under three separate grounds: (1) the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; (2)
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA); and (3) the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA).
That same day, 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 Minnesota if he had already been removed, and (2)
directing Respondents to file an answer, including “[a] reasoned memorandum of law . . .
explaining Respondents’ legal position on Petitioner’s claims,” by March 24, 2026. (Order
at 2, March 20, 2026, Docket No. 5.)
CASE 0:26-cv-01974-JRT-DJF Doc. 8 Filed 04/13/26 Page 2 of 6

-3-
Respondents filed a timely response but addressed only one of the grounds for
relief raised by Petitioner. 	(Docket No. 6.) 	Respondents contend that 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225(b)(2) authorizes Petitioner’s detention under the INA—but they did not present
the Court with any argument regarding Petitioner’s Due Process or APA claims.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner first alleges that his detention is unlawful under the Due Process Clause
of the Fifth Amendment.1 	He seeks immediate release, “or at a minimum . . . a bond
hearing,” as is required when a noncitizen is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). (Pet.
¶ 35.)
“[T]he Due Process Clause applies to all ‘persons’ within the United States,
including [noncitizens], whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or
permanent.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001). Courts employ the three-part
balancing test set forth in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), in determining
whether civil detention violates the detainee’s right to procedural due process under the
Fifth Amendment. See, e.g., Abdirashid H.M. v. Noem, Civ. No. 25-4779, 2026 WL 127698,
at *4 (D. Minn. Jan. 9, 2026). The three factors relevant to Petitioner’s due process claim
are: (1) “the private interest that will be affected by” his detention; (2) “the risk of an
erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable
1 The Eighth Circuit’s recent ruling in Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-3248 (8th Cir. Mar. 25,
2026) interprets the INA to permit mandatory detention under facts similar to this case.
The Court therefore will not grant Petitioner’s request for habeas relief on INA grounds.
CASE 0:26-cv-01974-JRT-DJF Doc. 8 Filed 04/13/26 Page 3 of 6

-4-
value, 	if 	any, 	of 	additional 	or 	substitute 	procedural 	safeguards”; 	and 	(3) 	“the
Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative
burdens 	that 	the 	additional 	or 	substitute 	procedural 	requirement 	would 	entail.”
Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335.
Whether citizen or noncitizen, a person’s freedom from being detained by the
Government is “the most elemental of liberty interests.” 	Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S.
507, 529 (2004). Indeed, freedom from physical imprisonment “lies at the heart of the
liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 690.
It is undisputed that Petitioner has the strongest of liberty interests at stake
here—but the Government has offered no rebuttal to Petitioner’s contention that his
liberty is being deprived without adequate process. 	In their one-and-a-half-page
Response to Petitioner’s habeas petition, Respondents did not address Petitioner’s Due
Process claim in any way. (See Docket No. 6.) Respondents thus waived any opposition
to Petitioner’s weighty Due Process arguments, and the Court will grant the petition and
order Petitioner’s immediate release. 	See, e.g., Pedro A.D.L.O.O. v. Bondi, Civ. No. 26-
1959, 2026 WL 948970, at *2 (D. Minn. Apr. 8, 2026) (concluding that Respondents
“waived any argument on the due process issue” where they “addressed only the
[Immigration and Nationality Act] argument” and not Petitioner’s due process argument).
CASE 0:26-cv-01974-JRT-DJF Doc. 8 Filed 04/13/26 Page 4 of 6

-5-
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner Aureliano M.S.’s Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus (Docket No. [1]) is GRANTED, as follows:
1. 	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.
2. 	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.
3. 	Given the potential for severe weather conditions in Minnesota, Respondents are
ORDERED to coordinate with Petitioner’s counsel to ensure that upon Petitioner’s
release, they are not left outside in inclement weather. It is preferable to release
Petitioner to counsel to ensure humane treatment.
4. 	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.
5. 	Respondents are ENJOINED from re-detaining Petitioner under this same statutory
theory, absent materially changed circumstances.
CASE 0:26-cv-01974-JRT-DJF Doc. 8 Filed 04/13/26 Page 5 of 6

-6-
6. 	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 April 17, 2026. 	Further, the
parties shall advise the Court at that time whether any additional proceedings in
this matter are required and submit any proposals for the scope of further
litigation.
DATED: April 13, 2026
at Minneapolis, Minnesota 	JOHN R. TUNHEIM
at 5:20 p.m. 	United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-01974-JRT-DJF Doc. 8 Filed 04/13/26 Page 6 of 6