Nguyen v. Hyde
1:25-cv-11470
| D. Mass. | May 23, 2025Background
- Dong Van Nguyen, currently detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Boston, filed a habeas corpus petition seeking release from custody.
- The legal basis of Nguyen's petition is alleged unlawful detention and prospective removal in violation of the U.S. Constitution and federal law.
- The district court emphasized that constitutional due process protections apply to all persons within the United States, regardless of citizenship or immigration status.
- The court clarified it does not have jurisdiction to review removal orders issued by immigration courts but does have jurisdiction to consider habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
- The court issued an order for expedited service and required the government to respond to the petition by May 27, 2025.
- The court issued a temporary stay barring the government from transferring or removing Nguyen without advance notice and from deporting or removing him from the U.S. absent further court order.
Issues
| Issue | Nguyen's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over habeas petition | Detention violates constitutional/federal protections | District court lacks jurisdiction over removal | Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 |
| Status quo preservation | Removal/transfer would moot case or destroy jurisdiction | No explicit argument noted | Court can issue status quo orders while jurisdiction unresolved |
| Notice before transfer | Need for judicial review and fair review | Not specified | Stay in place; advance notice and 72-hour waiting period imposed |
| Bar on removal from U.S. | Removal would violate due process | Not specified | Removal from U.S. prohibited until further court order |
Key Cases Cited
- Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (aliens, including those unlawfully present, are protected by due process)
- Brownback v. King, 592 U.S. 209 (federal court has jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction)
- United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622 (federal court’s ongoing authority to determine jurisdiction)
- United States v. United Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258 (district court may preserve status quo while considering its authority)
- United States v. Shipp, 203 U.S. 563 (actions that would destroy jurisdiction or moot a case can be enjoined pending review)