Amkha Souvannaseng v. Kristi Noem, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted Amkha Souvannaseng’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and ordered his immediate release under the conditions applicable before his re-detention. Applying Zadvydas v. Davis, the court held that continued detention was unlawful because removal was not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future. The court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order as moot and prohibited re-detention unless that likelihood of removal exists.

Holdings

1. The district court had subject matter jurisdiction over Souvannaseng's statutory and constitutional challenges to his post-removal-period detention under § 2241 notwithstanding 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
2. Continued detention was unlawful because Souvannaseng had been detained well beyond the presumptively reasonable six-month period and Respondents failed to show a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.
3. Respondents were required to immediately release Souvannaseng under the same conditions that existed before his November 28, 2025 re-detention, and were prohibited from re-detaining him unless there was a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.

Questions Presented

1. Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252 deprived the district court of jurisdiction over Souvannaseng's § 2241 statutory and constitutional challenges to post-removal-period detention.
2. Whether Souvannaseng's continued detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) was unlawful because removal was not reasonably foreseeable under Zadvydas v. Davis.
3. Whether the court needed to reach Souvannaseng's due process arguments concerning revocation of his order of supervision after granting relief under Zadvydas.

Disposition

writ_granted