Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Claire 	Glenn, 	CLIMATE 	DEFENSE 	PROJECT, 	Post 	Office 	Box 	7040,
Minneapolis, MN 55407, for Petitioner.
Ana H. Voss, David W. Fuller, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, 300
South Fourth Street, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55415 for Respondents.
Petitioner Alexis D. A. M. was arrested and detained by United States Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) on January 19, 2026. He filed a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus that same day, arguing that he is being detained unlawfully. Because the
Court concludes that Petitioner’s detention is unlawful, the Court will grant the petition
ALEXIS D. A. M.,
Petitioner,
v.
PAMELA BONDI, United States 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
Respondents.
Civil No. 26-447 (JRT/ECW)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS
CASE 0:26-cv-00447-JRT-ECW Doc. 6 Filed 01/26/26 Page 1 of 5

-2-
for habeas corpus and order that he be immediately returned to Minnesota and released
from custody.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a resident of St. Paul, MN, and a citizen of Honduras. (Verified Pet.
Writ Habeas Corpus (“Pet.”) ¶ 7, Jan. 19, 2026, Docket No. 1.) 	He entered the United
States as an Unaccompanied Minor Child at the age of 16 and has lived in the United
States since 2021. (Id. ¶ 13–14.) Petitioner lives in St. Paul with his wife and sister. (Id.
¶ 15.) He was initially detained at the Bloomington jail, but at the time his habeas petition
was filed, the online ICE detainee locator listed his location as “Call ICE for Details.” (Id.
¶ 22)
On January 20, 2026, the day after the habeas petition was filed, the Court issued
an order enjoining Respondents from removing Petitioner from the District of Minnesota
and directing Respondents to file an answer to the petition by January 22. (See Docket
No. 3.) 	Nevertheless, Respondents have informed the Court that “Petitioner was . . .
transferred to a facility in Texas on January 20, 2026, before the Enforcement and
Removal Operations personnel who carried out the transfer learned of the Court’s order.”
(Response at 2, Jan. 22, 2026, Docket No. 5.)
DISCUSSION
Respondents argue that Petitioner 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 Petitioner’s habeas petition are subject to the same analysis
CASE 0:26-cv-00447-JRT-ECW Doc. 6 Filed 01/26/26 Page 2 of 5

-3-
the Court recently employed in Herrera Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-3741, 2025 WL 2976539 (D.
Minn. Oct. 21, 2025) and Romero Santuario v. Bondi, No. 25-4296, 2025 WL 3469577 (D.
Minn, Dec. 2, 2025). 	The factual record before the Court shows that Petitioner was
arrested while already in the United States—where he has lived for over four years. For
the same reasons articulated in Herrera Avila and Romero Santuario, the Court concludes
that it possesses jurisdiction over this petition, and that Petitioner’s detention is not
authorized by § 1225(b)(2).
The Court therefore turns to the proper remedy. In previous cases involving this
issue, the Court has concluded that a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a) is the
appropriate remedy. 	However, the Court is now persuaded that 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, No. 25-4711, 2026 WL 25627, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 5, 2026); Lauro M. v. Bondi,
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.”).
Finally, the Court emphasizes its concern that Respondents transported Petitioner
out of Minnesota after the Court expressly ordered Respondents not to do so. This sort
of noncompliance is unacceptable.
CASE 0:26-cv-00447-JRT-ECW Doc. 6 Filed 01/26/26 Page 3 of 5

-4-
The Court will grant the petition for writ of habeas corpus, and order that
Petitioner be returned to Minnesota and released from custody immediately.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. 	Petitioner Alexis D. A. M.’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. 	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. 	Given the 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 dangerous cold. 	It is
preferable to release Petitioner to counsel to ensure humane treatment.
d. 	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 January 28,
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.
CASE 0:26-cv-00447-JRT-ECW Doc. 6 Filed 01/26/26 Page 4 of 5

-5-
DATED: January 26, 2026 	______/s/ John R. Tunheim ____
at Minneapolis, Minnesota 	JOHN R. TUNHEIM
at 10:30 A.M. 	United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-00447-JRT-ECW Doc. 6 Filed 01/26/26 Page 5 of 5