Jairo L. U. G. v. Mullin
Jairo L. U. G. v. Markwayne Mullin, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; David Venturella, Acting Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; David Easterwood, Field Office Director, Enforcement and Removal Operations, Minneapolis-St. Paul Field Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and Eric Tollefson, Sheriff, Kandiyohi County
- John Tunheim
- 0:26-cv-03051
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Jairo L. U. G. v. Mullin, Judge Tunheim granted a petition for release from immigration detention, finding the arrest warrant and any warrantless arrest authority were both legally defective.
Noncitizens detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) under administrative arrest warrants (Form I-200) issued before formal removal proceedings have been initiated, particularly those held in the District of Minnesota. The ruling also affects ICE's use of warrantless arrest authority when no showing has been made that the individual was likely to flee.
What happened
In Jairo L. U. G. v. Mullin, No. 26-3051, a citizen of Honduras who entered the United States without inspection in 2021 was granted deferred action by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in 2023 and had his removal proceedings dismissed. He was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on May 22, 2026, pursuant to an administrative arrest warrant (Form I-200), and was held at Kandiyohi County Jail. He then filed a petition asking the court to order his release, arguing his arrest violated federal immigration law, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the Fourth Amendment.
The court identified two independent reasons why the arrest was unlawful. First, the I-200 administrative warrant was invalid because ICE regulations only authorize that form of warrant once removal proceedings have begun — but ICE did not issue a Notice to Appear (the document that formally starts removal proceedings) until June 11, 2026, nearly three weeks after the May 22 arrest. Second, to the extent the government relied on its authority to make warrantless arrests, that authority requires officials to have reason to believe the person is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained. The record before the court did not show that Petitioner was likely to flee.
Judge Tunheim granted the petition and ordered Respondents to release Jairo L. U. G. from custody within 48 hours of the order, with all personal effects and without conditions such as location tracking devices. The ruling cited a prior decision by the same court, Hector J.A.S. v. Shea, as reaching the same conclusions under similar circumstances. The parties were also ordered to provide a status update by July 6, 2026, and to advise the court whether any further proceedings are needed.
The detailed version
- Jairo L. U. G. v. Mullin · No. 0:26-cv-03051
- John Tunheim
- July 1, 2026
Background
Petitioner Jairo L. U. G. is a citizen of Honduras who entered the United States without inspection in 2021. He was issued a Notice to Appear and placed in removal proceedings in 2022. On March 24, 2023, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) approved his Form I-360 and granted him deferred action for a period of four years unless terminated earlier. An immigration judge subsequently dismissed his removal proceedings.
On February 12, 2026, Petitioner was arrested for driving under the influence. On May 21, 2026, ICE officials issued a Form I-200 administrative warrant for his arrest, based on biometric confirmation of identity and a records check, for the purpose of executing a charging document and initiating removal proceedings. On May 22, 2026, ICE served the warrant, took Petitioner into custody, and transported him to Kandiyohi County Jail. It was not until June 11, 2026 — nearly three weeks after his arrest — that ICE issued and served Petitioner with a Notice to Appear, formally commencing removal proceedings.
Petitioner filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus on June 23, 2026. A writ of habeas corpus is a court order requiring the government to justify the legal basis for holding someone in custody; if the justification is insufficient, the court orders the person's release. Respondents filed a response on June 25, 2026, and Petitioner replied.
Legal Framework
The court noted that the Constitution guarantees the availability of habeas corpus to every individual detained within the United States absent congressional suspension. See Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004). Federal courts may grant habeas relief to persons detained in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).
Analysis
Invalidity of the I-200 Administrative Warrant
The court first examined the I-200 warrant. ICE's regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 236.1 authorize certain officials to arrest a noncitizen under a Form I-200 warrant "[a]t the time of issuance of [a] notice to appear, or at any time thereafter and up to the time removal proceedings are completed." The court emphasized that this language ties warrant authority to the existence or commencement of removal proceedings.
Because ICE did not issue the Notice to Appear until June 11, 2026 — approximately three weeks after Petitioner's May 22, 2026 arrest — the I-200 warrant was issued and executed before any removal proceedings existed. The court concluded that the warrant was therefore invalid, and the arrest pursuant to it was unlawful.
Invalidity of Claimed Warrantless Arrest Authority
The court next addressed Respondents' possible reliance on statutory authority for warrantless arrests. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2), certain immigration officers may make warrantless arrests of noncitizens when the officer has reason to believe the individual is in the United States unlawfully and is "likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest."
The court acknowledged that there may have been probable cause to believe Petitioner was unlawfully present in the United States. However, the court found that the record did not demonstrate that Petitioner was likely to escape before a valid warrant could have been obtained. Without that showing, the warrantless arrest authority under § 1357(a)(2) did not apply, rendering any warrantless arrest equally unlawful.
Remedy
The court determined that because both potential bases for the arrest were unlawful, the proper remedy was immediate release. The court cited its prior decision in Hector J.A.S. v. Shea, Civ. No. 26-2242, 2026 WL 1243500 (D. Minn. May 6, 2026), which reached the same conclusion under similar facts.
Order
Judge Tunheim granted the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court ordered Respondents to release Petitioner from custody as soon as practicable and no later than 48 hours from the filing of the order. Respondents were also directed to return all personal effects — such as driver's licenses, passports, and immigration documents — and to release Petitioner without conditions such as location tracking devices. Respondents were required to coordinate with Petitioner's counsel to ensure safe release. The parties were ordered to provide the court with a status update by 5:00 p.m. on July 6, 2026, and to advise whether any additional proceedings are required.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.