Ercelik v. Hyde
1:25-cv-11007
D. Mass.May 8, 2025Background
- Petitioner, an F-1 visa student at UMass Amherst, participated in a November 2023 political protest involving a counter-demonstration and altercation, leading to state criminal charges later pleaded down to misdemeanors.
- In April 2025, after more than a year without immigration action, the State Department revoked Petitioner’s visa apparently following online agitation by pro-Israel groups, and ICE placed him under surveillance, then arrested him upon appearance at a state court hearing.
- Petitioner filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, initially claiming constructive custody, later actual custody, asserting ICE’s detention was retaliatory and punitive without lawful basis.
- Respondents challenged the court’s jurisdiction, citing multiple immigration jurisdiction-stripping statutes, and contested the necessity and propriety of injunctive relief.
- Petitioner sought emergency relief to enjoin further detention or interference with his ability to depart the U.S.; the court granted a preliminary injunction ordering his release and barring further civil immigration detention absent advance notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction under §2241 (custody requirement) | Ercelik argued constructive, later actual, custody was sufficient for habeas review. | Respondents argued no physical custody at time of filing precluded jurisdiction. | Actual custody at time of review satisfies jurisdiction; court has authority. |
| Applicability of Jurisdiction-Stripping Statutes | Ercelik: Detention challenge not barred; raises constitutional claims independent of visa revocation/removal process. | Respondents: Statutes bar review of visa revocations, removal actions, and discretionary detention. | Statutes do not strip court’s jurisdiction over constitutional detention claims. |
| Constitutionality of Detention (First/Fifth Amendments) | Ercelik: Detention is retaliatory for political speech, lacks valid basis, and is punitive. | Respondents: Detention due to revoked visa and removal process; actions have consequences. | Likely First and Fifth Amendment violations; detention appears punitive and retaliatory. |
| Preliminary Injunction Factors | Ercelik: Faces irreparable harm, likely success, equities and public interest favor relief. | Respondents: Government should retain discretion; no irreparable harm. | All factors favor Ercelik; injunction granted, release ordered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236 (habeas custody requirement interpreted broadly, extends beyond physical confinement)
- Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (no clear bar to habeas review of constitutional claims in immigration detention)
- Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471 (Section 1252(g) is narrowly construed to three specific agency actions)
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (due process limits to civil immigration detention)
- Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135 (First Amendment protections apply to noncitizens)
- Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (loss of First Amendment freedoms constitutes irreparable harm)
- Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (lawful and unlawful speech must be distinguished in First Amendment analysis)
- Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286 (habeas corpus must remain flexible to challenge unlawful detention)
- Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (Due Process Clause applies to all persons, including noncitizens)
- Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (immigration detention cannot be punitive)