Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Garay Amador Mendez, Jaime Josue Martinez Torres, and Juan Manuel Torres Quevedo were arrested and detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in San Francisco on November 4, 2026. They filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and a motion for a temporary restraining order seeking release from detention pending further proceedings. The petition named as respondents, in their official capacities, Sergio Albarran, Field Office Director of the San Francisco ICE Office; David Venturella, Acting Director of ICE; Markwayne Mullin, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; and Todd Blanche, U.S. Attorney General.
The government filed an opposition to the TRO application, and petitioners filed a reply. The government did not dispute that the arrests were made without a warrant, but argued that a warrantless arrest would not be grounds for habeas relief and that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) provides other pathways to relief. Because respondents received notice of the TRO application and filed an opposition, the court applied the same legal standard as a motion for a preliminary injunction.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the temporary restraining order, finding that petitioners had raised serious questions going to the merits of their habeas petition. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), an arrest requires a warrant issued by the Attorney General. While 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2) permits warrantless arrests in certain circumstances, it requires that the arresting officer reasonably believe the individual is in the country illegally and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained. The court found that respondents did not demonstrate that officers made an individualized determination that petitioners were likely to escape before a warrant could be obtained, meaning the arrests were made without a warrant under Section 1226(a) and outside the warrant exception in Section 1357(a)(2).
The court found that petitioners were experiencing immediate and irreparable harm from detention, and that the balance of equities and public interest in ICE's compliance with federal law weighed in petitioners' favor. The court ordered respondents to immediately release the three petitioners from custody by 5:00 p.m. on November 6, 2026, and directed the government to file a status report by 6:00 p.m. that day confirming the release. The court also enjoined respondents from detaining the petitioners without a pre-detention individualized custody determination, ordered respondents to show cause in writing by November 11, 2026, why a preliminary injunction should not issue (with petitioners permitted to respond by November 13, 2026), and directed the parties to jointly submit a proposed briefing schedule on the habeas petition by November 16, 2026. The court waived the security requirement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), finding no realistic likelihood of harm to respondents from enjoining their conduct.
Key Takeaways
- An arrest under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) requires a warrant issued by the Attorney General, and warrantless arrests are only permitted under 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2) when officers reasonably believe the individual is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained.
- The government must demonstrate that officers made an individualized determination of flight risk before making a warrantless arrest under Section 1357(a)(2).
- Immigration detention constitutes immediate and irreparable harm for purposes of injunctive relief.
- The balance of equities and public interest favor compliance with federal immigration law requirements.
- When a TRO application is opposed, the same legal standard as a motion for a preliminary injunction applies, including the 'serious questions' sliding scale approach in the Ninth Circuit.
Why It Matters
This order reinforces the statutory requirement that immigration arrests under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) generally require a warrant, and that the warrantless arrest exception under 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2) demands an individualized determination that the person is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained. The decision underscores that courts will scrutinize whether immigration officers have made the required showing before conducting warrantless arrests.
The ruling also demonstrates the availability of habeas corpus relief and temporary restraining orders for individuals detained by ICE without proper legal authority. By granting immediate release and enjoining future detention without an individualized custody determination, the court emphasized the serious liberty interests at stake in immigration detention and the importance of ensuring compliance with statutory arrest requirements.