Ortega v. Kaiser

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted Giovanny Hernan Ortega’s motion for a temporary restraining order. The court enjoined the government from arresting, detaining, or removing Ortega without notice and a hearing, finding serious questions regarding his due process and immigration detention claims, likely irreparable harm, and a favorable balance of equities. The order remained in effect until July 10, 2025, at 9:00 a.m., unless extended or superseded.

Holdings

1. A temporary restraining order may issue where the plaintiff shows serious questions going to the merits, a balance of hardships that tips sharply in the plaintiff's favor, likely irreparable injury, and that the injunction is in the public interest.
2. The court found serious questions as to whether Ortega could be removed to any country without first receiving notice of that country and an opportunity to present a fear-based claim concerning it.
3. The court found serious questions as to whether ICE could detain Ortega without a pre-deprivation hearing when his removal was not reasonably foreseeable and he had complied with supervision requirements for years.
4. The court held that Ortega was likely to suffer irreparable harm, and that the balance of equities and public interest sharply favored temporary relief.
5. No security was required because the Government showed no realistic likelihood of harm from being temporarily enjoined.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Ortega showed serious questions as to whether due process, the Immigration and Nationality Act, FARRA, and the APA require notice and an opportunity to present a fear-based claim before removal to a country other than El Salvador.
2. Whether Ortega showed serious questions as to whether the Fifth Amendment and the INA preclude his detention when removal is not reasonably foreseeable and without a pre-detention hearing.
3. Whether Ortega satisfied the requirements for a temporary restraining order under the preliminary-injunction factors.
4. Whether the notice and security requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 and Civil Local Rule 65-1(b) were satisfied and whether security should be required.

Disposition

other