Salvador Olmos Meza v. Mike Lewis, et al.

Meza · United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Owensboro Division · January 13, 2026 · No. 4:25-cv-171-RGJ

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky grants Salvador Olmos Meza’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his immigration detention. The court holds that Meza, who had lived in the United States for more than twenty years and was arrested under a Form I-200, was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 rather than the mandatory-detention provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), and was therefore entitled to a bond hearing. The court also concludes that it has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and waives exhaustion.

Holdings

  1. Sections 1252(b)(9) and 1252(g) do not bar district-court jurisdiction over a habeas petition challenging the statutory and constitutional validity of immigration detention rather than the removal order, the decision to seek removal, or the process for determining removability.
  2. Section 1226, not § 1225(b)(2)(A), governs the detention of a noncitizen who has been present in the United States for many years, is not presently seeking admission at the border, and was arrested pursuant to a Form I-200 warrant.
  3. Meza's continued detention without an individualized bond hearing violated the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause and the INA.
  4. The proper remedy was release from the unlawful detention and a bond hearing on the merits before a neutral immigration judge before any redetention.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9) or § 1252(g) barred district-court habeas jurisdiction over Meza's challenge to the legality of his immigration detention.
  2. Whether Meza, a noncitizen who had been present in the United States for approximately twenty-five years and was arrested under a Form I-200 warrant, was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) or detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226.
  3. Whether Meza's continued detention without a bond hearing violated the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause and the INA.
  4. Whether the proper remedy was release and a bond hearing before a neutral immigration judge.

Disposition

writ_granted

Cases Cited (24)

  • Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)(followed)
  • Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 688, 690 (2001)(followed)
  • DHS v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 591 U.S. 1, 19, 22 (2020)(followed)
  • Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 288-89, 294-95, 301-03 (2018)(followed)
  • Reno v. American-Arab Anti–Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 482 (1999)(followed)
  • Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigam, 591 U.S. 103, 107-09 (2020)(followed)
  • In re Vill. Apothecary, Inc., 45 F.4th 940, 947 (6th Cir. 2022)(followed)
  • Roberts v. Sea-Land Servs., Inc., 566 U.S. 93, 101 (2012)(followed)
  • Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 400, 413 (2024)(followed)
  • TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19, 31 (2001)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 24.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…