Bekhit v. Blanche, et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
YOUSSEF FARAG GHALI
BEKHIT,
Petitioner,
v.
TODD BLANCHE, et al.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
NO. 3:26-cv-01331
JUDGE CAMPBELL
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Petitioner Youssef Farag Ghali Bekhit was arrested by United States Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) agents in Nashville, Tennessee on September 15, 2026, and was
transported to an ICE Processing Center at Adams County Correctional Center in Natchez,
Mississippi. (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 17; Doc. No. 13 ¶¶ 4). For the reasons stated herein, Petitioner’s
Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED. Respondents are ORDERED to
immediately transport Youssef Farag Ghali Bekhit to the Middle District of Tennessee at the
Government’s expense and to release Youssef Farag Ghali Bekhit immediately.
I. BACKGROUND
Petitioner, through counsel, initiated this habeas action on September 16, 2026, by filing
the present Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) under 28 U.S.C. § 2241,
alleging being unlawfully detained and denied a bond hearing by Respondents in violation of the
of the Fifth Amendment Due Process clause and the Immigration and Nationality Act. (See Doc.
No. 1). Petitioner was apprehended in the interior of the United States in a warrantless ICE
enforcement action during a regularly scheduled reporting appointment, years after Petitioner’s
entry. (See id. ¶ 17). Petitioner was taken into custody and treated by the Department of Homeland
Case 3:26-cv-01331 Document 15 Filed 10/14/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>

2
Security as subject to mandatory detention without bond under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). (See id.
¶ 19). The Petition represents that, as of the time of its filing, counsel for Petitioner believed that
Petitioner was in the custody of Respondents within this judicial district. (See id. ¶ 18).
On September 25, 2026, the Court ordered Respondents to show cause, within three
business days, why the writ of habeas corpus and other relief requested by Petitioner should not
be granted. (Doc. No. 8). On September 28, 2026, Respondents filed an unopposed motion for
extension of time to respond to the Petition. (Doc. No. 10). On October 9, 2026, Respondents
filed an amended unopposed motion for extension of time to respond to the Petition. (Doc. No.
12). On October 13, 2026, this Court granted Respondent’s Motion. (Doc No. 14). Respondents
filed their response on October 9, 2026, (Doc. No. 13), declaring that Petitioner was detained by
ICE in Nashville, Tennessee and was subsequently transported to Adams County Correctional
Center in Natchez, Mississippi. (Id. ¶ 4).
II. LAW AND ANALYSIS
The Sixth Circuit ruled recently that certain noncitizens were improperly detained under §
1225(b)(2) instead of § 1226(a), and that detention without an opportunity for release on bond
violated their due process rights:
Because no Petitioner is alleged to be seeking admission or lawful
entry into the United States, § 1225(b)(2)(A)’s mandatory detention
scheme does not apply to them. And since Ҥ 1226 applies to aliens
already present in the United States” and “creates a default rule for
those aliens by permitting—but not requiring—the Attorney
General to issue warrants for their arrest and detention pending
removal proceedings,” Petitioners could have been detained
pursuant to only § 1226. See Jennings, 583 U.S. at 303.
…
Petitioners rightfully state that they have a liberty interest to be free
from detention. As discussed, this is the most fundamental interest
protected by the Due Process Clause and is shared by citizens and
noncitizens alike. See Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 690, 121 S.Ct. 2491;
Case 3:26-cv-01331 Document 15 Filed 10/14/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>

3
Hamdi, 542 U.S. at 529, 124 S.Ct. 2633. It is from this liberty
interest that detention without an individualized bond hearing can
become constitutionally impermissible, even if the detention has a
theoretical end point. See Hernandez-Lara, 10 F.4th at 45–46;
Velasco Lopez v. Decker, 978 F.3d at 855 & n.13.
Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft, 175 F.4th 713, 732-34 (6th Cir. 2026) (affirming the district court’s
determination that the government’s detention of Petitioners without bond under § 1226(a) was a
deprivation of liberty that violated Petitioners’ due process rights). This binding authority is on
the exact issue presently before the Court and controls the resolution of the Petition in this matter.
Respondents acknowledge that Lopez-Campos is binding on this Court and have conceded that
Petitioner is detained under § 1226(a). Yet, Respondents further request that this Court deny the
Petitioner’s Motion because they represent that the Petitioner is scheduled to appear for a Master
hearing on October 16, 2026.
“ICE’s decision to detain [Petitioner] without a bond hearing violated that liberty interest
[to be free from detention], which cannot be casually tossed aside. Thus, Petitioner is entitled to
immediate release.” Chavez Ortiz v. W. Tennessee Det. Facility, 2026 WL 2455344, at *2 (W.D.
Tenn. Aug. 21, 2026) (citing Villafranca Lara v. Ladwig, 2026 WL 401204, at *10 (W.D. Tenn.
Feb. 12, 2026) (“Because ICE purported to detain [Petitioner] under § 1225(b)(2)(A), which
includes no provision for a bond hearing, the Court will not now order a bond hearing under §
1226(a).”)); see also Cardona v. Ladwig, 2025 WL 3722009, at *7 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 23, 2025)
(ordering Petitioner’s immediate release rather than a bond hearing after finding he was unlawfully
detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)). Therefore, consistent with Lopez-Campos, Villafranca
Lara, and Chavez Ortiz, and after consideration of the record, the Petition (Doc. No. 1) is
GRANTED.
Case 3:26-cv-01331 Document 15 Filed 10/14/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>

4
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Petition is GRANTED. Respondents are ORDERED, at
the Government’s expense, to immediately transfer Petitioner back to the Middle District of
Tennessee. Immediately following Petitioner’s return to this District, Respondents are
ORDERED to release Petitioner. Respondents are ENJOINED from pursuing Petitioner’s
detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). Respondents are FURTHER ORDERED to file a status
report with this Court within two business days, to certify compliance with this Order.
It is so ORDERED.
_______________________________________
WILLIAM L. CAMPBELL, JR.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:26-cv-01331 Document 15 Filed 10/14/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>