Joseph Ebu v. Jeff Tindall, Oldham County Jailer; Samuel Olson, Field Office Director for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Kristi Noem, in her official capacity as Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-779-RGJ · United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Louisville Division · January 30, 2026 · No. Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-779-RGJ

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky granted Joseph Ebu’s amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus and ordered his immediate release from immigration detention. The court held that ICE violated its own regulations and Ebu’s procedural due process rights by detaining him without properly revoking his Form I-220A order of release. The court also directed the United States to certify compliance with the release order by February 2, 2026.

Court
United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Louisville Division
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Louisville Division
Decision date
January 30, 2026
Docket number
Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-779-RGJ
Procedural posture
Petitioner sought habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 from his allegedly unlawful immigration detention. After the parties briefed the amended petition and agreed to forgo an evidentiary hearing, the district court granted the petition and ordered Petitioner's immediate release.
Standard of review
The court reviewed the habeas petition to determine whether Petitioner was in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States. It reviewed the meaning and application of 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(c)(9) de novo under ordinary principles of textual interpretation.
Precedential value
unpublished district court opinion
Parties
Joseph Ebu v. Jeff Tindall, Oldham County Jailer, Samuel Olson, Field Office Director for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Kristi Noem, in her official capacity as Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Disposition
writ_granted

Topics

immigration detentionprocedural due processadministrative procedure actjudicial review of agency actionstatutory interpretation

Practice areas

immigration lawfederal habeas corpusadministrative lawconstitutional lawremedies

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to review Ebu's challenge to the legality of his immigration detention rather than a challenge to the removal order or removal proceedings.
  2. Whether ICE properly revoked Ebu's Form I-220A Order of Release under 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(c)(9).
  3. Whether ICE violated the Accardi doctrine and the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to follow the regulation governing revocation of Ebu's release order.
  4. Whether Ebu's continued detention violated his Fifth Amendment procedural due process rights.
  5. Whether immediate release was an appropriate habeas remedy for the unlawful detention.

Holdings

  1. The district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 because Ebu challenged the legality of his detention itself, not the removal order, the decision to seek removal, or the process by which removability would be determined.
  2. Under 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(c)(9), Ebu could be taken into physical custody only after his Form I-220A release had been properly revoked. Because the cancellation section of the order was unsigned, undated, and unchecked, the release had not been revoked.
  3. ICE violated the Accardi doctrine and the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to follow its own regulation governing revocation of Ebu's release order.
  4. The government's asserted delegation order did not delegate authority to revoke Ebu's release, and the arrest warrant therefore did not establish a valid revocation under 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(c)(9).
  5. ICE's failure to comply with the release-revocation regulation violated Ebu's Fifth Amendment procedural due process rights.
  6. Immediate release was an appropriate remedy for Ebu's unlawful immigration detention.

Key quotations

In the event, THESAURAS.COM, https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/in-the-event (last visited Jan. 26, 2026) (synonyms for “in which event” include “on condition,” “if and only if”).
The end result cannot be used to justify the lack of earlier event.
The Court acknowledges that the United States has broad discretion to enforce immigration laws and, possibly, to revoke Ebu’s Order of Release. But it must follow the law and give every word in the applicable statutes and regulations their full meaning.

Factual background

Joseph Ebu is a lawful permanent resident who entered the United States lawfully in 2013 and pleaded guilty to two misdemeanors in 2017. After prior removal proceedings and post-conviction litigation, including the overturning of a final removal order, he was released in 2021 under a Form I-220A Order of Release. ICE detained him again on December 8, 2025, when he voluntarily attended an immigration interview, but the Form I-220A copy showed that the cancellation section was unsigned, undated, and unchecked. The government conceded that the release-cancellation boxes had not been checked and argued that an arrest warrant and delegated authority nevertheless effected a valid revocation.

Procedural history

Ebu, a lawful permanent resident, had previously been detained and ordered removed, but his final removal order was overturned and he was released in 2021 under a Form I-220A Order of Release. ICE detained him again on December 8, 2025, when he attended an immigration interview. Ebu filed an amended habeas petition, arguing that ICE had not properly revoked his prior release order and had violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the Accardi doctrine, and the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. The district court reached the merits, granted habeas relief, and ordered immediate release.

Remand instructions

No remand. The court ordered the United States to release Ebu from custody immediately and to certify compliance on the docket no later than February 2, 2026.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…