Maria D. v. David Easterwood, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota grants Maria D.’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging her immigration detention. The court holds that she was improperly classified as subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), rather than discretionary detention under § 1226(a), and concludes that the government failed to establish a warrant-based statutory predicate for her detention. The court orders her release, with specified procedures if she has been moved outside Minnesota.

Holdings

1. The jurisdiction-stripping provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5), (b)(9), and (g) do not bar review of the narrow question whether a noncitizen is subject to discretionary detention under § 1226 or mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2).
2. Maria was misclassified under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2); because she was already in the United States, her detention, if authorized, falls under the discretionary detention provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), not mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2).
3. A warrant is a necessary condition for discretionary detention under § 1226(a); absent a warrant, the government may not arrest and detain a noncitizen under that provision, and immediate release is an appropriate habeas remedy where no lawful statutory predicate for detention has been established.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court had subject-matter jurisdiction to determine whether Maria was subject to discretionary detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) or mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
2. Whether Maria was properly classified as subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), or instead was subject to discretionary detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
3. Whether detention under § 1226(a) was lawful absent an arrest warrant and, if not, whether immediate release was an appropriate habeas remedy.

Disposition

writ_granted