Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Malaquias Elionai Ramirez Cardona, a resident of San Mateo, California for five years, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus and an ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order on October 20, 2026. According to the petition, Ramirez Cardona works for a local plumbing business, is active in his church, has no criminal record, and had never previously had contact with immigration authorities or been placed in removal proceedings. On October 20, 2026, while riding as a passenger in his employer's marked work van, ICE stopped the vehicle. Although Ramirez Cardona was not driving and was not the subject of the stop, ICE agents handcuffed him and took him into custody without a warrant or reasonable suspicion, transferring him to the ICE San Francisco Field Office.
The court applied the standard for a temporary restraining order, which mirrors the preliminary injunction standard under Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, requiring a showing of likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, a favorable balance of equities, and that an injunction serves the public interest. The court also recognized the alternative 'serious questions' standard where the balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff's favor. The court noted that when the government is the opposing party, the balance of equities and public interest factors merge, and that a TRO is an extraordinary remedy limited to preserving the status quo pending a preliminary injunction hearing.
The Court’s Holding
The court found that Petitioner demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of his procedural due process claim under the Fifth Amendment. Citing Zadvydas v. Davis and Zinermon v. Burch, the court held that freedom from imprisonment lies at the heart of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause, which typically requires a hearing before the state deprives a person of liberty. The court found that immigration detention requires a showing of exigent circumstances, and Respondents offered no evidence that Petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the community, citing Ayala v. Albarran in support.
The court further held that Petitioner established irreparable harm, as the likely unconstitutional deprivation of liberty constitutes immediate and irreparable injury. The balance of equities and public interest weighed heavily in favor of relief: the public has a strong interest in upholding procedural protections against unlawful detention, while the government faces only a minimal delay in detention if it later justifies the need. The court determined that the status quo to be preserved was the moment prior to Petitioner's likely illegal detention, and granted the TRO without notice under Rule 65(b)(1), dispensing with the bond requirement under Rule 65(c). The court ordered Petitioner's immediate release, enjoined re-detention without notice and a pre-deprivation hearing, prohibited removal from the judicial district and the United States, and set an order to show cause hearing for November 2, 2026.
Key Takeaways
- The court granted a TRO requiring immediate release of an immigration detainee seized without a warrant or reasonable suspicion during a traffic stop where he was a passenger.
- The court found a likelihood of success on a procedural due process claim, holding that the Fifth Amendment requires a hearing before detention absent exigent circumstances, which the government failed to show.
- Deprivation of constitutional rights constitutes irreparable harm per se, and the balance of equities favors the detainee when the government shows no flight risk or danger to the community.
- The status quo for TRO purposes is the period before the allegedly unlawful detention, not the current custodial status.
- The court dispensed with the bond requirement, finding no realistic likelihood of harm to the government from being enjoined from constitutional violations.
Why It Matters
This order reinforces procedural due process protections for individuals detained by ICE in the Ninth Circuit, requiring the government to demonstrate exigent circumstances such as flight risk or dangerousness to justify warrantless detention. The decision aligns with precedent holding that prolonged detention without a hearing violates the Fifth Amendment, and that the public interest favors constitutional compliance over administrative convenience. The court's willingness to grant ex parte relief and dispense with bond underscores the gravity of liberty deprivations without process.
The ruling leaves open the ultimate merits of the habeas petition and whether a preliminary injunction will issue after the November 2, 2026 hearing. The court did not rule on the lawfulness of the underlying removal proceedings, if any, or the validity of any future detention supported by proper process. The order is temporary, expiring on November 3, 2026, unless extended.