Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Maria Guadalupe Calvillo Lara, a Mexican citizen who had lived in the United States since 2018, was arrested by immigration officials on January 19, 2026, while returning from a grocery store. She alleged that she had no criminal record, was neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community, had two young U.S.-citizen children, and was eligible for relief from removal.
An immigration judge denied bond for lack of jurisdiction, and Calvillo Lara remained in ICE custody without an individualized determination concerning the reasons for her detention. She petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The federal respondents sought summary judgment, arguing that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) required her detention, but they did not dispute her material factual allegations.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the respondents’ summary-judgment motion and granted the habeas petition in part. Applying the three-factor procedural-due-process test from Mathews v. Eldridge, the court held that § 1225(b)(2) detention as applied to Calvillo Lara—without notice, an opportunity to be heard, or an individualized assessment—violated the Due Process Clause. Her substantial liberty interest, the absence of procedures guarding against erroneous detention, and the lack of any asserted flight-risk, dangerousness, or other weighty governmental justification all favored her.
Because the respondents identified no available process for Calvillo Lara to pursue, the court concluded that release, rather than a bond hearing, was the appropriate habeas remedy. It ordered her release within 48 hours under conditions no more restrictive than those preceding her detention, prohibited her removal or transfer under the existing detention, and required the return of her identification documents. The court also barred re-detention during her removal proceedings unless an immigration judge first finds, after a hearing, that the government proved by clear and convincing evidence that she is a flight risk or danger to the community.
Key Takeaways
- Mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2), as applied to this petitioner without notice, a hearing, or an individualized assessment, violated procedural due process.
- The court ordered immediate release because the government identified no administrative process for the petitioner to await.
- Any re-detention during removal proceedings requires a pre-detention hearing and clear-and-convincing proof of flight risk or dangerousness.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes statutory detention authority from the Constitution’s procedural requirements: even after recognizing Fifth Circuit precedent treating similarly situated noncitizens as subject to § 1225(b)(2), the court held that the statute’s application could still violate due process.
The order also provides a significant remedy beyond directing a future bond hearing. It requires release, restricts the government’s ability to re-detain Calvillo Lara, and places the burden on the government to justify any renewed custody through heightened proof at a pre-detention hearing.