Ge Y. v. Noem
Ge Y. v. Kristi Noem, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security; Todd M. Lyons, Acting Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and David Easterwood, Acting Director, St. Paul Field Office Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:26-cv-01700
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Ge Y. v. Kristi Noem, Judge Menendez ordered the immediate release of immigration detainee Ge Y. from custody, granting his petition to be freed from detention (a writ of habeas corpus) after the government failed to object to a magistrate judge's recommendation that he be released.
Ge Y., an individual held in immigration detention in Minnesota, and potentially other immigration detainees whose custody may be governed by Orders of Supervision and who seek release through habeas corpus petitions in this district.
What happened
In Ge Y. v. Kristi Noem, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, et al., a man identified as Ge Y. filed a legal petition asking a federal court to order his release from immigration detention, arguing he was being held unlawfully. United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois reviewed the case and, on March 17, 2026, issued a written recommendation that Ge Y. should be released. Because Ge Y.'s freedom was at stake, Judge Brisbois shortened the normal two-week window for the government to challenge that recommendation.
The government — represented by officials from the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) — did not file any objection to the recommendation within the shortened deadline, or in the additional days that followed. When no objections are filed, the district court reviews the magistrate's recommendation only for obvious legal mistakes, a standard called 'clear error' review.
Finding no error in Judge Brisbois's recommendation, Judge Katherine M. Menendez adopted it in full on March 23, 2026, and ordered Ge Y.'s immediate release in Minnesota. The court directed that he may not be subjected to conditions beyond those already set in a January 14, 2013 Order of Supervision, that all personal property seized during his arrest — including identification and immigration documents — must be returned, and that the government must confirm his release within 48 hours.
The detailed version
This case involves a petition for a writ of habeas corpus — a legal request asking a court to order that a person being held in government custody be released because the detention is unlawful — filed by Ge Y. against three federal officials: Kristi Noem (Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security), Todd M. Lyons (Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement), and David Easterwood (Acting Director of the St. Paul Field Office of ICE).
On March 17, 2026, United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) — a non-binding written recommendation to the district court judge — concluding that the petition should be granted and Ge Y. should be released. Because personal liberty was at stake, Judge Brisbois shortened the standard 14-day objection period, giving respondents less time than usual to file objections.
Respondents (the government officials) did not file objections within the shortened period, nor in the additional days that elapsed before the district court acted. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and applicable Eighth Circuit precedent (Grinder v. Gammon), when no objections are filed to an R&R, the district court reviews only for 'clear error' — a deferential standard under which the court looks only for obvious mistakes, rather than conducting a fresh, independent review.
District Judge Katherine M. Menendez found no clear error and adopted the R&R in full. The court's order, entered March 23, 2026, grants the habeas petition and directs: (1) immediate release of Ge Y. in Minnesota, with no conditions beyond those set in his January 14, 2013 Order of Supervision; (2) return of all personal effects seized during his arrest, specifically including identification documents and immigration documentation; and (3) written confirmation of his release within 48 hours. Judgment is to be entered accordingly.
The opinion does not describe the underlying facts or legal reasoning supporting the R&R in detail, as those appear in the R&R itself (Dkt. 9), which is not reproduced here.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.