Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
German Aguilar Solis was held at the California City Immigration Processing Center and sought habeas relief from federal immigration detention. The district court had addressed the same legal issues in several earlier cases and ordered the government to explain why it should not grant the writ and direct his release.
After the Ninth Circuit decided Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, the government conceded that binding circuit precedent gave Aguilar Solis a statutory right to a bond hearing. The remaining issue was the consequence of ICE having previously released him and then taking him back into custody without first providing notice and an opportunity to be heard.
The Court’s Holding
The Eastern District granted the habeas petition and ordered Aguilar Solis released immediately. The court held that the government’s earlier release created a protected liberty interest. ICE therefore could not impose additional restrictions or later arrest and detain him again without constitutionally adequate pre-deprivation procedures.
The permanent injunction requires notice explaining the changed circumstances asserted to justify any future detention and a timely hearing before custody is imposed. At that hearing, the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Aguilar Solis poses a danger to the community or a flight risk, and he must be permitted to have counsel present. The order does not restrict detention if he later becomes subject to an executable final removal order. The government also had to confirm his release within five days, and the court entered judgment and closed the case.
Key Takeaways
- The Ninth Circuit’s 2026 precedent established a statutory right to a bond hearing for the category of detention at issue.
- A prior release from immigration custody can create a liberty interest protected by due process.
- ICE may not re-detain the petitioner based on changed circumstances without advance notice and a timely hearing.
- The government bears a clear-and-convincing burden to prove danger or flight risk at any future custody hearing.
- The injunction preserves separate authority that may arise if a final removal order later becomes executable.
Why It Matters
The decision gives immigration counsel a framework for challenging not only prolonged detention but also re-detention after a client has already been released. The core question is procedural: even when the government claims new grounds for custody, it generally must explain those grounds and provide a hearing before taking away an established liberty interest.
Practitioners should preserve records of prior release conditions and compliance, demand specific notice of asserted changed circumstances, and prepare evidence addressing danger and flight risk. The heightened burden placed on the government can be decisive when ICE seeks to restore custody without a new final removal posture.