5:25-cv-02190
C.D. Cal.Aug 26, 2025Background
- Noncitizen Petitioners, detained by ICE and charged as inadmissible for being present in the U.S. without admission, sought a writ of habeas corpus after being denied bond hearings.
- The denials were based on a new DHS policy (July 2025) instructing ICE to treat such noncitizens as applicants for admission subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225, rather than under § 1226 which allows for bond hearings.
- Petitioners argued this new policy reversed decades of agency practice which provided individualized bond hearings for similarly situated noncitizens unless criminal history rendered them ineligible.
- Petitioners filed an ex parte application for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), seeking expedited bond hearings and an injunction against their relocation out of the judicial district.
- The government contended the Court lacked jurisdiction and that, in the alternative, Petitioners failed to meet the requirements for a TRO.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(b)(9) and (g) | Habeas challenge to detention is not jurisdictionally barred. | Detention challenge is part of removal process and not reviewable. | Jurisdiction exists; statutes do not bar review of detention challenge. |
| Applicability of § 1225 vs. § 1226 for Detention | § 1226(a) governs detention; entitles Petitioners to bond hearings. | § 1225 mandatory detention applies as Petitioners are applicants for admission. | § 1226(a) governs; likely unlawful to deny bond hearings under new policy. |
| Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies | Not required; issue is purely legal and ripe for review. | Judicial relief is premature until administrative remedies exhausted. | Exhaustion prudentially waived given futility and nature of legal issue. |
| Winter Factors for TRO | Detention without bond hearing causes irreparable harm; public interest supports relief. | No irreparable harm or public interest in enjoining enforcement. | All Winter factors satisfied; TRO granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (2018) (Section 1252(b)(9) does not bar habeas challenges to detention without bond hearings)
- Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471 (1999) (Section 1252(g) limits jurisdictional bar to three enumerated government actions)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (Equities and public interest factors merge when government is a party in injunction analysis)