Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Herman Navarro Aguilar, a non-citizen subject to a reinstated order of removal, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking immediate release from immigration custody or, alternatively, a bond hearing. He had previously been granted a temporary restraining order requiring his immediate release pending adjudication of a preliminary injunction. The court consolidated the adjudication of the preliminary injunction with the merits of the habeas petition.
Navarro Aguilar challenged his detention on two primary grounds. First, he contended that he was arrested without a warrant and without sufficient cause, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Second, he argued that his continued detention violated his procedural due process rights. Respondents produced an arrest warrant, but the record was unclear whether it was issued before the arrest. The court assumed without deciding that the arrest was warrantless for purposes of its analysis.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied both the preliminary injunction and the habeas petition. Regarding the Fourth Amendment claim, the court assumed without deciding that Navarro Aguilar was arrested without a warrant but found he had not demonstrated that this justified habeas relief. The court cited precedent holding that the remedy for an unlawful arrest is the suppression of evidence, not release from custody, and that the discovery of a person's identity is not suppressible as the fruit of an unlawful arrest. Navarro Aguilar failed to identify any contrary case law or provide a basis to distinguish the cited precedent.
On the due process claim, the court assumed without deciding that Navarro Aguilar had a protectible liberty interest but found no procedural due process violation. The court noted that Navarro Aguilar did not contest he was previously ordered removed and was currently detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2)(A), which requires detention of any non-citizen with a final order of removal that is less than ninety days old. Because his reinstated order of removal became final on October 2, 2026, the ninety-day removal period had not yet elapsed, making his detention mandatory. The court concluded that the risk of an erroneous deprivation of liberty was therefore low, and that while indefinite detention after the removal period would raise due process concerns under Zadvydas v. Davis, that period had not yet elapsed.
Key Takeaways
- A warrantless arrest does not justify immediate release through a habeas petition when the petitioner's detention would otherwise be lawful, as the remedy for an unlawful arrest is suppression of evidence, not release from custody.
- Detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2)(A) is mandatory for non-citizens with a final order of removal that is less than ninety days old, and such detention during this period does not violate procedural due process.
- The ninety-day removal period under § 1231(a) begins on the date the order of removal becomes final, and detention during this period passes constitutional scrutiny.
- While indefinite detention after the removal period has elapsed would raise due process problems under Zadvydas v. Davis, detention during the initial ninety-day period does not present the same constitutional concerns.
- The burden is on the habeas petitioner to justify relief and provide a basis to distinguish adverse precedent; failure to do so results in denial of the petition.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the distinction between the remedies available for Fourth Amendment violations and the grounds for habeas corpus relief in the immigration context. It clarifies that even if an arrest is unlawful, release from custody is not the appropriate remedy when detention is otherwise authorized by statute.
The ruling also confirms the constitutionality of mandatory detention during the ninety-day removal period under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2)(A), emphasizing that due process concerns regarding prolonged detention arise only after this statutory period has elapsed.