Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Maria F.,
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; and David
Easterwood, Acting Director, St. Paul
Field Office Immigration and Customs
Enforcement,
Respondents.
File No. 26-cv-486 (ECT/DTS)
OPINION AND ORDER
Timothy M. Philips, Law Office of Tim Phillips, Minneapolis, MN, for Petitioner Maria F.
Ana H. Voss and Trevor Brown, United States Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for
Respondents Pamela Bondi, Kristi Noem, Todd M. Lyons, and David Easterwood.
Petitioner Maria F. is a Mexican citizen who has lived in the United States for
approximately 35 years. 	Pet. [ECF No. 1] ¶ 12. 	Maria “does not have a final order of
removal.” Id. ¶ 13. On January 20, 2026, Maria was arrested and detained by ICE as part
of “Operation Metro Surge.” See id. ¶¶ 15–16. The Petition alleges, “[u]pon information
CASE 0:26-cv-00486-ECT-DTS Doc. 7 Filed 01/22/26 Page 1 of 6

2
and belief, Respondents had no . . . warrant” for her arrest, and that absent a warrant, she
is entitled to release. Id. ¶¶ 51–52.1
Maria challenges her detention under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 	Pet. ¶ 2. 	She claims she
has been wrongly classified as a § 1225(b)(2) detainee (whose detention is mandatory)
rather than a § 1226 detainee (whose detention is discretionary and who is entitled to a
bond hearing). Pet. ¶¶ 26–28, 37–45; see Jose J.O.E. v. Bondi, 797 F. Supp. 3d 957, 961–
62 	(D. Minn. 	2025) 	(explaining 	legal 	framework). 	According 	to 	Maria, 	that
misclassification and denial of a bond hearing violate her right to due process under the
Fifth Amendment, the Administrative 	Procedure Act, 	and 8 	U.S.C. §§ 	1225(b)(2)
and 1226(a). 	See Pet. ¶¶ 29–52. 	Maria seeks an order requiring Respondents to show
cause why she should not be released immediately, or alternatively, afforded a bond
hearing; issuance of a writ of habeas corpus requiring Respondents to release her unless
they provide a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a); an order enjoining her transfer out
of the District of Minnesota during the pendency of her Petition; and “any other and further
relief that this Court may deem just and proper.” Pet. at 14.
In a one-paragraph response, Respondents state that Maria’s petition “raises legal
and factual issues similar to those in prior habeas petitions this Court has decided,” and
argues that the petition fails on the merits for the same reasons set forth in the appeal of
1 	Neither party provided the Court with Maria’s Notice to Appear or the other
paperwork we’ve usually received in these cases. In this case, it doesn’t matter. In their
very brief response to Maria’s habeas petition, Respondents did not contest any of the facts
alleged in the Petition. See ECF No. 4.
CASE 0:26-cv-00486-ECT-DTS Doc. 7 Filed 01/22/26 Page 2 of 6

3
Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-3741 (JRT/SGE), 2025 WL 2976539 (D. Minn. Oct. 21, 2025),
appeal docketed, No. 25-3248 (8th Cir. Nov. 10, 2025). See ECF No. 4 at 1. 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.
Maria has shown she has been misclassified under § 1225(b)(2) rather than § 1226.
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
2 	To the extent Respondents challenge this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction to
consider Maria’s Petition by way of their response in Avila, 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-00486-ECT-DTS Doc. 7 Filed 01/22/26 Page 3 of 6

4
one federal court of appeals has ruled on the question, and it reached the same conclusion.
See Castañon-Nava v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048, (7th Cir. 2025). Maria
has lived in the United States for “approximately 35 years.” See Pet. ¶ 12. Her detention
falls under § 1226 and not § 1225(b)(2).
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, Maria
argued that “release is the appropriate remedy” where Respondents had no warrant for her
arrest pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Pet. ¶¶ 51–52; accord id. at 14. Respondents have
not produced any warrant, nor have they advanced any specific argument that Maria’s
CASE 0:26-cv-00486-ECT-DTS Doc. 7 Filed 01/22/26 Page 4 of 6

5
release is an unwarranted remedy.3 	See ECF No. 4 at 1 (“The Federal Respondents also
acknowledge that some judges in this District have concluded release is the appropriate
remedy in the absence of a warrant preceding a petitioner’s arrest”).
“[R]elease is an available and appropriate remedy” for “detention that lacks a lawful
predicate.” 	Order on Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Vedat C. v. Bondi, No.
25-cv-4642 (JWB/DTS) (D. Minn. Dec. 19, 2025), ECF No. 9 at 6 (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)).
ORDER
Therefore, based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings
herein, IT IS ORDERED THAT Petitioner Maria F.’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).
3 	Respondents do not argue that Maria is subject to mandatory detention pursuant to
8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), nor do they argue that a statutory scheme other than that raised in the
Petition would apply to Maria’s detention.
CASE 0:26-cv-00486-ECT-DTS Doc. 7 Filed 01/22/26 Page 5 of 6

6
2. 	Respondents shall release Petitioner from custody as soon as practicable, but
not later than 48 hours after entry of this Order.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: January 22, 2026, at 1:10 p.m. 	s/ Eric C. Tostrud
Eric C. Tostrud
United States District Court
CASE 0:26-cv-00486-ECT-DTS Doc. 7 Filed 01/22/26 Page 6 of 6