Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Gasner Marcellus, a Haitian citizen, entered the United States on July 2, 2021, and was released on immigration parole. He remained physically at liberty for more than five years. On August 30, 2026, however, he was taken into immigration custody during a delivery order without notice or a hearing. He petitioned under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that the government detained him without identifying changed circumstances that would justify revoking his release.
The government acknowledged that, under Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, Marcellus was subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), rather than mandatory detention under § 1225(a), and that he had previously been released on parole. It therefore did not oppose the petition. The court explained that although courts of appeals review challenges to final removal orders, district courts retain habeas jurisdiction over independent collateral issues concerning detention.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that Marcellus's 2021 release created a protected liberty interest in remaining out of custody. It reasoned that the release implicitly reflected a government determination that he was neither dangerous nor a flight risk, and there was no suggestion that he had violated his release conditions. Relying on decisions including Pinchi v. Noem and Morrissey v. Brewer, the court treated release as carrying an implicit promise that liberty would be revoked only for failure to satisfy its conditions.
Applying the three Mathews v. Eldridge factors, the court found that Marcellus had a substantial interest in freedom from physical restraint; that detention without notification, reasoning, or a hearing created a high risk of erroneous deprivation; and that the government's interest in proceeding without those safeguards was low. It emphasized the absence of evidence that the original danger and flight-risk findings had changed and noted that Marcellus apparently had complied with all release conditions.
The court consequently declared the detention unlawful and granted the writ. It ordered Marcellus immediately released subject to his preexisting release conditions. Before any re-detention, the government must provide reasons for revocation and a hearing before a neutral decision maker, where it must prove danger or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence. The parties must file a joint status report confirming release by October 20, 2026. The court did not decide Marcellus's Administrative Procedure Act claim because due process resolved the petition, although it observed that other courts had found similar parole revocations arbitrary or unsupported by individualized reasoning. Counsel may submit an Equal Access to Justice Act fee application within 30 days.
Key Takeaways
- Release from immigration custody can create a protected liberty interest even when the government initially had discretion over detention.
- The court required notice, reasons, and a hearing before a neutral decision maker before Marcellus could be detained again.
- At any future hearing, the government must establish community danger or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence.
- The government's concession that discretionary detention rules applied, together with its decision not to oppose the petition, framed the court's due-process ruling.
- The Administrative Procedure Act claim remained undecided, while the order separately permitted a timely application for attorney's fees and costs under the EAJA.
Why It Matters
The decision applies established due-process principles to the revocation of immigration parole after years of compliance with release conditions. Its practical importance lies not in preventing all future detention, but in requiring the government to justify renewed custody through procedures designed to test whether circumstances have materially changed.
The order also specifies the decision maker, burden of proof, and immediate relief rather than merely identifying a constitutional defect. By restoring the preexisting release conditions and requiring confirmation of release, the court supplied concrete safeguards while leaving the government able to seek detention again through the prescribed process.