Summary
The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan conditionally granted Moises Ralac Cos’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), rather than § 1225(b)(2)(A), governs his detention and ordered Respondents to provide a bond hearing within five business days or release him. The court also retained certain respondents and dismissed the United States Department of Homeland Security, the United States Attorney General, and the Executive Office for Immigration Review.
Court
United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division
Decision date
February 13, 2026
Docket number
1:26-cv-174
Disposition
writ_granted
Questions Presented
- Whether the court should enforce prudential exhaustion of administrative remedies before considering Cos's § 2241 challenge to his immigration detention.
- Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), rather than 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), governs the detention of a noncitizen who has resided in the United States and was already present in the country when apprehended.
- Whether Cos's detention under the mandatory-detention framework of § 1225(b)(2)(A) violates the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.
- Whether the Detroit ICE Field Office Director is the only proper respondent in the habeas action.
Holdings
- The court declined to enforce prudential exhaustion against Cos and alternatively concluded that waiver of exhaustion was appropriate.
- Section 1226(a), rather than 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), governs detention of a noncitizen who has resided in the United States and was already within the United States when apprehended and arrested.
- Cos's current detention under the mandatory-detention framework of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) violates the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.
- The Detroit ICE Field Office Director is not the only proper respondent; the court retained the Field Office Director and the Secretary of Homeland Security and dismissed DHS, the Attorney General, and EOIR as respondents.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…