Mario Alberto Bautista Cervantes v. Misty Mackey, Warden, Midwest Regional Reception Center; Todd M. Lyons, ICE Acting Director; United States Department of Homeland Security; Markwayne Mullin, DHS Secretary; and Todd Blanche, Acting Attorney General

Bautista Cervantes v. Mackey · United States District Court for the District of Kansas · April 27, 2026 · No. 26-3089-JWL

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Kansas partially grants Mario Alberto Bautista Cervantes’s petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court holds that, because petitioner was not a newly arriving alien, the Government may not detain him under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) without bond consideration and must either release him or provide a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) by May 8, 2026. The court denies the petitioner’s requests for additional relief and reserves any attorney-fee request for a future motion.

Court
United States District Court for the District of Kansas
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the District of Kansas
Decision date
April 27, 2026
Docket number
26-3089-JWL
Disposition
other

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to consider statutory and constitutional challenges to petitioner's immigration detention unrelated to a final order of removal.
  2. Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), which mandates detention of certain newly arriving aliens, authorized detention of petitioner, who had been present in the United States for years before his detention.
  3. Whether petitioner was entitled to consideration for release on bond under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
  4. What relief was appropriate for the statutory violation.

Holdings

  1. The district court had habeas corpus jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to consider petitioner's statutory and constitutional challenges to immigration detention that were unrelated to a final order of removal.
  2. The Government could not detain petitioner under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) because petitioner was not an alien newly arriving in the United States; his detention pending a final removal decision was instead governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
  3. By refusing to allow consideration of petitioner's release on bond under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), the Government violated the governing detention statutes.
  4. The appropriate remedy was to require respondents either to release petitioner or ensure that he received a bond hearing under § 1226(a) on the merits by May 8, 2026; the court denied additional requested relief.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…