M-S-L v. Bostock
6:25-cv-01204
D. Or.Jul 10, 2025Background
- Petitioner M.S.L., a Mexican national, fled Mexico due to physical violence and emotional distress linked to her gender identity.
- M.S.L. entered the U.S. in February 2024, was released on her own recognizance by immigration authorities, and was granted humanitarian parole after a credible fear determination.
- She previously had been removed from the U.S., a fact known to authorities at her release.
- M.S.L. filed for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection; her application remains pending.
- She was later detained again during a scheduled ICE check-in in Oregon, after having complied with all legal requirements posed by immigration authorities.
- She filed this habeas petition alleging her re-detention lacked individualized due process and sought immediate release and restrictions on her transfer from District of Oregon.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction of District Court over petition | Court has power to review habeas petitions despite general removal review limits | Not stated in opinion; anticipated statutory challenge | Court orders briefing on subject matter jurisdiction, preserves status quo |
| Constitutionality of re-detention without individualized determination | Alleged violation of Due Process Clause of Fifth Amendment | Not stated in opinion | Court orders respondents to respond, preserves petitioner’s location pending review |
| Transfer of petitioner outside of District | Transfer would deprive court of effective jurisdiction and hinder relief | Not stated in opinion | Ordered no transfer outside District without court approval, with notification requirements |
| Maintenance of status quo during jurisdiction review | Necessary to preserve Court's ability to hear the case | Not stated in opinion | Court explicitly exercises authority to maintain status quo |
Key Cases Cited
- Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (U.S. 2004) (habeas corpus remains available to challenge detention by U.S. authorities)
- Brownback v. King, 592 U.S. 209 (U.S. 2021) (federal courts always have power to determine their own jurisdiction)
- United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 330 U.S. 258 (U.S. 1947) (district court may preserve existing conditions while determining jurisdiction)
- United States v. Shipp, 203 U.S. 563 (U.S. 1906) (court can enjoin action that would destroy its jurisdiction or moot a case)