Summary
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted J.A.M.C.'s ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order concerning his immigration detention. The court ordered his release and prohibited re-detention without a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, with the government required to establish by clear and convincing evidence that detention was necessary. The order also set a schedule for briefing and a preliminary-injunction hearing and remained effective until November 21, 2025.
Holdings
- J.A.M.C. satisfied the requirements for an ex parte temporary restraining order because the record showed immediate and irreparable injury from continued detention before defendants could be heard, and counsel had attempted to provide notice.
- A noncitizen conditionally released into the United States on immigration bond has a significant liberty interest in remaining out of immigration custody.
- J.A.M.C. was likely to succeed on his procedural due process claim because the government could not re-detain him without first providing a hearing before a neutral decisionmaker at which it established by clear and convincing evidence that bond revocation and detention were necessary to prevent flight or protect the public.
- The court exercised its discretion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) to dispense with security because there was no realistic likelihood of harm to respondents from the injunction.
Questions Presented
- Whether J.A.M.C. satisfied the requirements for an ex parte temporary restraining order.
- Whether a noncitizen conditionally released on immigration bond has a protected liberty interest in remaining out of immigration custody.
- Whether re-detaining J.A.M.C. without a pre-deprivation hearing violated procedural due process under the Fifth Amendment.
- Whether the court should require immediate release, prohibit re-detention without a hearing, and dispense with security under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c).
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (25)
- Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, 1159 n.3 (9th Cir. 2017)(followed)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 21 (2008)(followed)
- Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Peña, 865 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir. 2017)(followed)
- Shell Offshore, Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc., 709 F.3d 1281, 1291 (9th Cir. 2013)(followed)
- Hubbard v. City of San Diego, 139 F.4th 843, 854 (9th Cir. 2025)(followed)
- East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, 932 F.3d 742, 779 (9th Cir. 2018)(followed)
- Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974)(followed)
- Pablo Sequen v. Albarran, No. 25-CV-06487-PCP, __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2025 WL 2935630, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2025)(followed)
- Ortega v. Bonnar, 415 F. Supp. 3d 963, 970 (N.D. Cal. 2019)(followed)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 482 (1972)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 25.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…