Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
The petitioner, identified only by initials, is a noncitizen who, according to the record the court cited, entered the United States without admission in 2019. He has lived here about seven years, worked in construction, and supported his wife and her minor children. He was arrested as a passenger during an April 2026 traffic stop, and on July 31, 2026, ICE took him into custody without notice or a hearing.
Proceeding without a lawyer, he petitioned for habeas corpus and sought a temporary restraining order. The government opposed. It did not dispute that he is entitled to a custody redetermination hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and acknowledged he had requested one, but said the hearing was "being scheduled" and gave no update for over two weeks. He had by then been detained more than two and a half months. He described anxiety, insomnia and depression from detention conditions, and the government did not argue he was dangerous or a flight risk.
The Court’s Holding
The court found a protected liberty interest, reasoning that freedom from imprisonment is at the core of due process, that even a removable person keeps that interest, and that it can strengthen with time in the community. Applying the three Mathews v. Eldridge factors, it found his private interest substantial. It found the risk of erroneous deprivation considerable because he had received no hearing before or after detention. It found the government's interest in detention without a hearing "nil," with the burden of a routine custody hearing negligible. It concluded he was detained in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
The court separately found a statutory violation. The government conceded a hearing was owed under § 1226(a) yet had neither held nor scheduled one in over 75 days, and the record appeared to show an initial custody determination only nearly two months into detention. Because agencies must follow their own statutes and regulations, the court treated these failures as unlawful.
The court granted the petition and ordered immediate release, return of the petitioner's documents and possessions, and a notice of compliance by October 16, 2026. It denied the temporary restraining order as moot and directed entry of judgment for the petitioner and closure of the case. It also enjoined re-arrest or re-detention while he is subject to § 1226(a) absent at least seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral factfinder. At that hearing the government must show by clear and convincing evidence that its interest in protecting the public or ensuring appearance outweighs his liberty interest such that no alternative to detention can mitigate the risk. He may have counsel there. If a final, executable removal order issues, the government must give seven days' notice before executing it and detaining him.
Key Takeaways
- A concession that § 1226(a) entitles a detainee to a custody hearing does not cure the problem when no hearing is held or scheduled for more than 75 days.
- Time spent living in the community, family ties and work strengthen a noncitizen's liberty interest, and possible removability does not eliminate it.
- The court found the government's interest in detaining someone without a hearing minimal, and the burden of providing a routine custody hearing negligible.
- Relief went beyond a hearing. The court ordered release and barred re-detention without seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation hearing at which the government bears a clear and convincing burden.
- This is an unpublished district court order resolving one petitioner's case, so it has persuasive value only and does not bind other courts.
Why It Matters
The order shows how one Eastern District judge handles prolonged § 1226(a) detention without a hearing. It treats the statutory and constitutional violations together and orders release rather than only a hearing. The court said it "once again" found that due process requires a custody hearing within a reasonable time, and it relied on its own earlier rulings and other district decisions.
Its reach is limited. It is an unreported order with no precedential force, and the court set no fixed number of days after which detention becomes unlawful. It relied on more than 75 days with no hearing at all. The protective injunction applies only while the petitioner is subject to § 1226(a). The order resolved the petition and closed the case, so nothing remains pending in this court.