Harkamal Singh v. Greg Hale, Superintendent, Northwest Correctional Facility; David Wesling, Acting Director of the Boston Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Todd Lyons, Acting Director of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and Kristi Noem, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Singh · United States District Court for the District of Vermont · March 18, 2026 · No. 2:26-cv-53

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Vermont granted Harkamal Singh’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court held that immigration authorities violated Singh’s Fifth Amendment due process rights by re-detaining him after his prior discretionary release without providing notice, an opportunity to be heard, or evidence of changed circumstances. The court ordered Respondents to immediately release Singh.

Holdings

  1. A noncitizen who has been granted discretionary release from immigration custody has a protected liberty interest in remaining free from detention, even if the noncitizen lacks lawful immigration status.
  2. When immigration authorities re-detain a noncitizen who was previously released from immigration custody, due process requires some process, including notice and an opportunity to be heard, before or contemporaneously with the re-detention.
  3. Immediate release was the appropriate remedy for Singh's detention without constitutionally required process.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Singh had a protected liberty interest in remaining free from immigration detention after his prior discretionary release by immigration authorities.
  2. Whether the Fifth Amendment required immigration authorities to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard before or contemporaneously with re-detaining Singh after a prior release, absent evidence of changed circumstances.
  3. Whether Singh was entitled to immediate release as the remedy for his unconstitutional detention.

Disposition

writ_granted

Cases Cited (14)

  • Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690, 693 (2001)(followed)
  • Velasco Lopez v. Decker, 978 F.3d 842, 850-51 (2d Cir. 2020)(followed)
  • Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 781 (2008)(followed)
  • Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 332-35 (1976)(followed)
  • Nielson v. Preap, 586 U.S. 392, 397-98 (2019)(applied)
  • Matter of Sugay, 17 I. & N. Dec. 637, 640 (B.I.A. 1981)(followed)
  • Saravia v. Sessions, 280 F. Supp. 3d 1168, 1197 (N.D. Cal. 2017), aff'd sub nom. Saravia for A.H. v. Sessions, 905 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2018)(followed)
  • Valdez v. Joyce, 803 F. Supp. 3d 213, 217-18 (S.D.N.Y. June 18, 2025)(followed)
  • Lopez v. Sessions, No. 18 Civ. 4189 (RWS), 2018 WL 2932726, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. June 12, 2018)(followed)
  • Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71, 80 (1992)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 14.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…