Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan grants Jose Calderon Mendez’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court holds that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), rather than § 1225(b)(2)(A), governs his detention and that detention without a bond hearing violates due process. The court orders his immediate release or a bond hearing within seven days and enjoins detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A).
Holdings
- Although the immediate-custodian rule generally applies to immigration habeas petitioners, the exception recognized in Roman v. Ashcroft applies where the court is concerned that detainees may be transferred between districts to evade habeas review. The Detroit ICE Field Office Director and the Secretary of Homeland Security therefore remained proper respondents, while DHS, the Attorney General, and EOIR were dismissed.
- Section 1226(a), rather than § 1225(b)(2)(A), governed Calderon Mendez's detention because he was apprehended in the United States and placed in removal proceedings, not treated as an arriving applicant for admission. The Government's broad interpretation of mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) was contrary to the statutory text, structure, congressional intent, and longstanding agency practice.
- Detention of Calderon Mendez under the mandatory-detention framework without a bond hearing violated his due process rights.
Questions Presented
- Whether the United States Secretary of Homeland Security was a proper respondent under the immediate-custodian rule and its exception for transfers intended to evade habeas review.
- Whether Calderon Mendez's detention was governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) or the mandatory-detention provision in 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A).
- Whether detention without a bond hearing violated Calderon Mendez's due process rights.
- Whether the court should order immediate release, a bond hearing, and an injunction against detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A).
Disposition
writ_granted
Cases Cited (13)
- Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004)(followed)
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001)(followed)
- AARP v. Trump, 145 S. Ct. 1364, 1367 (2025)(followed)
- Roman v. Ashcroft, 340 F.3d 314, 322, 326 (6th Cir. 2003)(followed)
- Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft, 797 F. Supp. 3d 771 (E.D. Mich. 2025)(followed)
- Sandoval v. Raycraft, 2025 WL 2977517 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 17, 2025)(followed)
- Contreras-Cervantes v. Raycraft, 2025 WL 2952796 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 17, 2025)(followed)
- Pacheco Mayen v. Raycraft, 2025 WL 2978529 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 17, 2025)(followed)
- Casio-Mejia v. Raycraft, 2025 WL 2976737 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 21, 2025)(followed)
- Santos Franco v. Raycraft, 2025 WL 2977118 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 21, 2025)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 13.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…