Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Luis Alberto R.L., a noncitizen who entered the United States without admission at age four in 1999, lived in the country for 27 years, was granted DACA in 2012 (expired 2016), and was placed in removal proceedings in 2020. He was released on an ankle monitor and later placed in ICE’s Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP), complying with monthly check-ins. On March 14, 2026, ICE arrested him at a routine check-in without notice or a hearing, despite allegedly considering reducing his reporting requirements. Petitioner was detained for nearly six months without any custody hearing. An immigration judge ordered him removed on June 30, 2026; the order became final on July 31, 2026, after Petitioner did not appeal. Petitioner filed a habeas petition challenging the lawfulness of his arrest and prolonged detention without due process. The order therefore addresses the present procedural record and does not decide questions the court expressly left for later proceedings.
The Court’s Holding
The Court granted the petition for writ of habeas corpus and ordered Petitioner’s immediate release. It held that Petitioner possessed a protected liberty interest under the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause, strengthened by his 27 years of residence and prior release on supervision. Applying the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test, the Court found the private interest in liberty substantial, the risk of erroneous deprivation high due to the complete absence of any pre- or post-deprivation hearing, and the government’s interest in detention without process minimal. The Court further held that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) required a bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, which Respondents failed to provide. The subsequent final removal order under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2) did not retroactively cure the due process violations. The Court ordered immediate release, return of possessions, and enjoined re-detention without ten days’ pre-deprivation notice and compliance with regulatory safeguards. The result is limited to the relief and posture described in the order; it should not be read as resolving claims or issues the court did not reach.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen with decades of U.S. residence and a history of compliance with supervision programs possesses a robust liberty interest protected by the Fifth Amendment, even if removable.
- The government cannot arrest and detain an individual on supervision for nearly six months without any custody hearing, pre- or post-deprivation, without violating due process.
- Statutory detention authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) mandates extensive procedural protections, including a bond hearing before a neutral arbiter; failure to provide these renders detention unlawful.
- A final removal order acquired months into an unlawful detention does not moot or cure antecedent due process violations.
- Habeas corpus remains the appropriate remedy for unlawful executive detention, and release is the typical remedy even if the government may later seek to re-detain lawfully.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that prolonged civil immigration detention without any hearing violates the Fifth Amendment, particularly where the detainee has deep community ties and a history of compliance. It clarifies that the government’s detention authority under § 1226(a) carries non-waivable procedural requirements, and that a shift to mandatory detention authority under § 1231(a)(2) after months of process-free detention does not sanitize the prior constitutional violation. The injunction requiring ten days’ notice and regulatory compliance before any re-detention imposes a meaningful check on executive power. The ruling aligns with Ninth Circuit precedent in Hernandez v. Sessions and Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, and district court decisions in Doe v. Becerra and Alvarenga Matute v. Wofford, establishing that due process protections attach to liberty interests created by the government’s own release decisions. Practitioners should track the stated deadlines and the precise form of relief, because later proceedings may change the parties’ positions without altering what this order itself decided.