Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
The petitioner, Dennis Diaz Milan, a citizen of Cuba, entered the United States in July 2022 and was released on his own recognizance. In February 2026, during a scheduled appointment at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) office, he was taken into custody. At the time of his detention, he had been living in the U.S. for nearly four years, had no criminal history, and was actively pursuing legal relief from removal.
Through his attorney, Diaz Milan filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that his detention was unlawful. He claimed that holding him without an individualized custody hearing violated his constitutional right to due process. He asked the federal court to order his immediate release or, alternatively, grant him a bond hearing to determine if his detention was necessary.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the writ of habeas corpus, finding that the petitioner’s detention violated the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. Judge George C. Hanks, Jr. ordered that Diaz Milan be released from custody within 48 hours. The court denied the government’s request to delay the case pending a related appeal in the Fifth Circuit, noting that the petitioner’s injury from continued detention was ongoing.
Applying the three-part balancing test from the Supreme Court case *Mathews v. Eldridge*, the court found all factors weighed in the petitioner’s favor. It held that Diaz Milan’s liberty is a significant private interest; that detaining him without any procedural safeguards created a high risk of erroneous deprivation of that liberty; and that the government had failed to assert any specific interest, such as flight risk or danger to the community, that would justify the detention. Because the government offered no process to justify the detention, the court concluded that the only appropriate remedy was release.
Key Takeaways
- An immigrant who has been present in the U.S. for years, was previously released, and has no criminal record has a protected liberty interest under the Due Process Clause.
- Detaining such an individual without providing any individualized assessment, notice, or an opportunity to be heard violates their right to procedural due process.
- When detention is found to be unconstitutional due to a lack of process, the appropriate remedy is immediate release, not merely a bond hearing.
- The government cannot justify prolonged detention simply by citing a statute; it must also adhere to constitutional due process requirements, especially when it fails to show the detainee is a flight risk or a danger to the community.
Why It Matters
This decision contributes to a series of federal district court rulings pushing back against the mandatory detention of immigrants who, after living peacefully in the community for years, are detained without a hearing. The opinion underscores that non-citizens in removal proceedings retain fundamental constitutional rights, including the right to procedural due process before being deprived of their freedom.
The ruling provides a clear legal basis for other individuals in similar situations to challenge their detention. It signals to immigration authorities that they cannot indefinitely detain long-term residents with no criminal history without providing an individualized hearing to justify the custody. By ordering immediate release, the court chose the strongest available remedy, emphasizing the severity of the constitutional violation.