Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Josue R.R., an immigration detainee at the California City Detention Center proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his continued detention without an individualized bond hearing. Petitioner was arrested on January 31, 2019, for possessing between two and four ounces of marijuana in violation of Texas Health and Safety Code § 481.121(b)(2). He pleaded guilty and received deferred adjudication and community supervision on April 28, 2021, which he successfully completed on October 27, 2022.
ICE detained Petitioner at a scheduled check-in on July 23, 2026. Respondent contended that the Texas marijuana conviction subjected Petitioner to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1)(A) based on inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) for a controlled substance offense. Petitioner requested release under his prior supervision conditions or, alternatively, a custody hearing.
The Court’s Holding
The Court granted the petition in part, holding that Petitioner's Texas marijuana conviction does not trigger mandatory detention under § 1226(c) because the Texas statute governing his January 2019 offense included hemp, which federal law had excluded from the definition of marijuana effective December 20, 2018. Applying the categorical approach, the Court found the state statute categorically overbroad relative to the federal Controlled Substances Act at all potentially relevant dates (offense, arrest, and conviction). Because no other basis for mandatory detention was identified, Petitioner's detention is governed by § 1226(a), which entitles him to an individualized bond hearing.
The Court ordered Respondent to provide a bond hearing before an immigration judge within ten days, at which the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the community. The immigration judge must consider Petitioner's financial circumstances and alternative conditions of release, and Petitioner must receive at least 72 hours' written notice in a language he understands. If the hearing is not held within ten days, Petitioner shall be immediately released.
Key Takeaways
- A Texas marijuana conviction under the pre-June 2019 statutory definition—which included hemp—does not categorically match the federal controlled substance offense required for mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), because federal law excluded hemp effective December 20, 2018.
- The categorical approach compares the state statute in effect at the time of the offense to the federal schedules in effect at the same historical time; here, the state law was overbroad at every potentially relevant date (offense, arrest, and conviction).
- Actual prosecutions under the broader state definition are not required to establish categorical overbreadth when the statutory text itself defines the offense more broadly than federal law.
- Where mandatory detention does not apply, detention falls under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which requires an individualized bond hearing at the outset of detention.
- The government bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that continued detention is justified by flight risk or danger to the community, and the immigration judge must consider the detainee's financial circumstances and alternative conditions of release.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces Ninth Circuit precedent that state marijuana convictions under statutes that included hemp before state-level hemp exclusions took effect cannot support mandatory immigration detention, because the categorical approach requires a historical comparison to federal law at the time of the offense. The ruling clarifies that when federal law excluded hemp before the petitioner's offense date, the precise comparison date (offense, arrest, or conviction) need not be resolved.
The Court also affirmed that prolonged prior compliance with supervision conditions is relevant to the burden of proof at a § 1226(a) bond hearing, requiring the government to justify renewed detention by clear and convincing evidence. The order's specific procedural mandates—including the ten-day deadline, 72-hour notice requirement, and automatic release provision—provide a template for habeas relief in similar mandatory-detention challenges.