Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California grants Harmeet S.’s ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order challenging his immigration detention without a bond or custody redetermination hearing. The court finds that Petitioner is likely to succeed on a procedural due process claim and that the remaining TRO factors favor relief. Respondents are ordered to immediately release Petitioner under his prior conditions and are restrained from re-detaining him absent specified constitutional protections.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether petitioner was likely to succeed on a Fifth Amendment procedural due process claim based on detention after conditional release without notice or a bond or custody-redetermination hearing.
- Whether petitioner satisfied the four Winter factors for issuance of an ex parte temporary restraining order.
- What interim procedures were constitutionally required before respondents could re-arrest or re-detain petitioner.
Holdings
- A noncitizen released from custody pending immigration proceedings may possess a protected liberty interest in remaining out of custody when the government has released the person subject to conditions and the person has complied with those conditions. On the record presented, petitioner established such an interest.
- Petitioner showed a likelihood of success on his claim that continued immigration detention without a bond or custody-redetermination hearing violated procedural due process.
- Petitioner satisfied the Winter factors and was entitled to a temporary restraining order without notice.
- Respondents were enjoined from re-arresting or re-detaining petitioner absent constitutional protections, including seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation or custody hearing before a neutral decisionmaker at which the government would bear the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that petitioner posed a danger to the community or a flight risk and petitioner could have counsel present.
Key quotations
“The Due Process Clause applies to all “persons” within the borders of the United States, regardless of immigration status.” (at 3)
“On balance, the Court finds the Matthews factors demonstrate Petitioner is entitled to due process: a hearing to determine whether detention is warranted.” (at 5)
“it is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional rights.” (at 6)
Factual background
Petitioner, a twenty-one-year-old citizen of India, entered the United States in 2022 and was released as a minor under the TVPRA. He later pursued Special Immigrant Juvenile Status, asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection, while participating in an alternatives-to-detention program. Although he reported and resolved a mobile-application malfunction, ICE detained him at an in-person check-in without notice or explanation, and he remained detained for more than a month without a bond or custody-redetermination hearing.
Procedural history
Petitioner was detained by ICE on November 26, 2025, after approximately three years of release under an alternatives-to-detention program and without notice of an alleged violation or a bond hearing. He filed a habeas petition and a TRO motion on January 12, 2026. The district court granted the TRO, ordered immediate release, imposed constitutional protections against re-arrest or re-detention, and issued an order to show cause concerning a preliminary injunction.