Manuel I. v. Bondi
Manuel I. v. Pamela Bondi, Attorney General; Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Todd M. Lyons, Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement; David Easterwood, Acting Director, St. Paul Field Office Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Joel Brott, Sheriff of Sherburne County Jail
- Susan Nelson
- 0:26-cv-01933
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 7
In Manuel I. v. Pamela Bondi et al., Judge Susan Richard Nelson granted a petition for release from immigration detention, finding that ICE arrested and held Manuel I. without the warrant required by law and that immediate release was the proper remedy.
Noncitizens already residing in the United States who have been arrested and detained by ICE without a warrant under the government's theory of mandatory detention; immigration detainees held at Sherburne County Jail or within the District of Minnesota who may be similarly situated.
What happened
In Manuel I. v. Pamela Bondi et al. (Case No. 26-CV-1933), Manuel I., a citizen of Ecuador living in Columbia Heights, Minnesota since 2022, was arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on March 17, 2026, and held at Sherburne County Jail. He filed a petition asking a federal court to order his immediate release or, at minimum, a bond hearing, arguing that he was not under a final removal order and that ICE never obtained a warrant before arresting him.
The central legal dispute was which immigration detention law applied. The government argued that Manuel I. was subject to mandatory detention under a law covering people who entered the country without going through inspection (8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)), which does not require a warrant or allow for a bond hearing. Manuel I. argued that a different law applied (8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)), which covers noncitizens already living inside the United States and expressly requires a warrant before a person can be arrested and detained. The government did not respond to the court's direct order to explain whether a warrant existed or to provide documents supporting the lawfulness of the detention.
Judge Susan Richard Nelson ruled in favor of Manuel I., holding that the law requiring a warrant (§ 1226(a)) applies to noncitizens already residing in the United States, consistent with her prior rulings and the rulings of most other federal courts to consider the issue. Because the government failed to produce any warrant or other documentation justifying the detention, the court found the detention lacked a lawful basis and ordered Manuel I. released immediately — within 48 hours. The order also requires the government to notify his attorney before release, return all his belongings and documents, and prohibits the government from re-detaining him using the same legal theory the court rejected.
The detailed version
- Manuel I. v. Pamela Bondi, Attorney General, et al., No. 26-CV-1933 (SRN/DLM), United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
- Susan Richard Nelson, United States District Judge
- March 22, 2026
Background
Manuel I., a citizen of Ecuador, has lived in Columbia Heights, Minnesota since 2022. He alleges he is not subject to a final order of removal. On March 17, 2026, ICE agents arrested him — allegedly without a warrant — and detained him at Sherburne County Jail in Elk River, Minnesota. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (a court order requiring the government to justify a person's imprisonment) on March 18, 2026, seeking immediate release or, alternatively, a bond hearing before an immigration judge.
On March 19, 2026, the court issued an Order to Show Cause, temporarily barring the government from moving Manuel I. out of Minnesota, and ordering Respondents to explain the legal basis for his detention, including whether a warrant existed for his arrest. The court specifically directed Respondents to distinguish this case from two prior rulings: Maldonado v. Olson, 795 F. Supp. 3d 1134 (D. Minn. 2025), and E.M. v. Noem, No. 25-cv-3975 (D. Minn. 2025).
Respondents filed a two-paragraph response. They argued that Manuel I. is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), relying on interim DHS/ICE guidance and a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision, Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216 (BIA 2025), which holds that all persons who entered without inspection are 'applicants for admission' subject to mandatory detention. Respondents did not address the warrant requirement, did not produce a warrant or any supporting documentation, and did not distinguish the case from the court's prior rulings.
Legal Issue 1 — Which Detention Statute Applies
The court had to resolve whether § 1225(b)(2) (mandatory detention for applicants for admission, applicable to persons at or near the border) or § 1226(a) (discretionary detention of noncitizens already in the United States, requiring a warrant) governed Manuel I.'s detention. The court reaffirmed its prior holdings in Maldonado and E.M. that § 1226(a) applies to noncitizens already residing in the United States, consistent with the overwhelming majority of district courts nationwide. The court noted that two federal courts of appeals have reached opposite conclusions on this issue: the Seventh Circuit found mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) was unlikely to apply (Castañon-Nava v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048 (7th Cir. 2025)), while the Fifth Circuit ruled it did apply (Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026)). The court remained unpersuaded by the government's statutory interpretation but noted the arguments were preserved for appeal. The government did not assert that any of § 1226(c)'s mandatory detention exceptions (covering certain criminal or security grounds) applied.
Legal Issue 2 — Warrant Requirement and Appropriate Remedy
Under § 1226(a), detention requires a warrant issued by the Attorney General. The court cited prior District of Minnesota decisions (Ahmed M. v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-4711 (D. Minn. Jan. 5, 2026); Juan S.R. v. Bondi, No. 26-cv-0005 (D. Minn. Jan. 12, 2026); Vedat C. v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-4642 (D. Minn. Dec. 19, 2025)) for the proposition that the absence of a warrant under § 1226(a) is not a mere procedural irregularity but a substantive defect that deprives the government of detention authority. Since Respondents failed to produce a warrant or any documentation supporting the lawfulness of detention — despite being explicitly ordered to do so — the court found the detention lacked a lawful statutory basis. Habeas relief, the court stated, addresses the lawfulness of custody itself, and where detention lacks a lawful predicate, release is the available and appropriate remedy.
Orders:
- The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED.
- Respondents must release Manuel I. immediately, within 48 hours.
- Respondents must notify his counsel (Jason L Schellack) within two hours of release, providing the location and approximate time of release.
- All personal belongings, identifying documents, immigration documents, cell phone, clothing, and jewelry must be returned upon release.
- Respondents may not recharacterize the release as grounds to impose conditions without prior court authorization or a new, independently lawful custody decision.
- Respondents must confirm release on the court's docket within 48 hours.
- Respondents may not re-detain Manuel I. under the same legal theory rejected here absent materially changed circumstances.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.