Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Baljinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, entered the United States in July 2024. He was initially detained but released on supervision that same month, applied for asylum, and received employment authorization. According to the order, he fully complied with his supervision conditions, had no criminal record, and had no final removal order because his asylum application remained pending.
ICE arrested Singh on October 6, 2026, as he left his residence on a bicycle to go to work. The court described the arrest and detention as occurring without notice, a material change in circumstances, a pre-deprivation hearing, or a meaningful opportunity to be heard about the effective revocation of supervision. Singh filed a verified habeas petition on October 9, 2026. Respondents did not file a timely answer, and Singh filed a notice of noncompliance on October 19. A footnote reported that the U.S. Attorney's Office had decided not to respond to some immigration-related habeas petitions despite the court's show-cause directive.
The Court’s Holding
The court explained that habeas relief could not issue merely because respondents defaulted: Singh still had to prove that his custody violated the Constitution or federal law. It concluded that he carried that burden. Although the court lacked jurisdiction to review a final removal order, it held that it could adjudicate this challenge to ICE re-detention. The court also recognized that due process extends to noncitizens present in the United States and requires notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.
Relying on decisions addressing similar re-detentions, the court held that a noncitizen released from immigration detention on conditions has a constitutionally protected liberty interest that re-detention can violate. Singh's July 2024 release, years of remaining undetained, and full compliance with supervision gave him a protected interest in remaining free. Applying the three Mathews v. Eldridge factors, the court found that his abrupt re-detention without a material change in circumstances or a meaningful hearing violated due process.
The court ordered Singh's immediate release under his previous supervision conditions. It also enjoined further re-detention unless respondents provide at least seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, where the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Singh presents an unacceptable danger or flight risk. The petition was granted in part because Singh had not justified different or additional relief, and the court directed entry of judgment.
Key Takeaways
- A respondent's failure to answer a habeas petition does not automatically entitle the petitioner to release; the petitioner must still establish unlawful custody.
- The court distinguished a challenge to ICE re-detention, which it could hear, from a challenge to a final removal order, which it could not review.
- Release on immigration supervision combined with sustained compliance can support a constitutionally protected liberty interest against renewed detention.
- The remedy restored Singh's prior supervised release and added notice and hearing requirements rather than granting every form of relief he sought.
- Any future re-detention under the injunction requires the government to meet a clear-and-convincing-evidence burden at a pre-deprivation bond hearing.
Why It Matters
The decision applies due-process protections to the specific circumstances of a noncitizen who was released on supervision, complied with its conditions, and then was abruptly detained again while his asylum case remained pending. Its analysis turns on that history and the absence of notice, changed circumstances, or a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
The judgment does more than order release: it prescribes procedural protections for any attempted re-detention, including advance notice, a neutral decisionmaker, and a demanding government burden. At the same time, the partial grant and express denial of unjustified additional relief define the limits of the remedy.