Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
David Pena Noy, a Cuban citizen who entered the United States in 2022, was detained in January 2026 and transferred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody. He petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, asserting that his detention violated procedural due process.
Pena Noy stated that he had family, employment, and a stable residence in the United States, was pursuing relief from removal, had no criminal record, and posed neither a flight risk nor a danger. The federal respondents disputed none of those material facts, although they reported that he had been arrested and charged with resisting an officer. They sought dismissal or summary judgment, arguing that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) required his detention and that his constitutional claim lacked merit.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that applying § 1225(b)(2) to detain Pena Noy without notice, an opportunity to be heard, or an individualized assessment violated procedural due process. Applying the three-factor test from Mathews v. Eldridge, the court found that Pena Noy had a protected liberty interest, the available procedures created a substantial risk of erroneous deprivation, and the government identified no flight risk, public danger, or other weighty interest justifying his continued detention. All three factors favored Pena Noy.
The court denied the respondents’ motion and granted the habeas petition in part. It ordered Pena Noy released within 48 hours under conditions no more restrictive than those preceding his detention, prohibited his transfer or removal under the existing detention, and required the return of his identification documents. It also barred re-detention during his removal proceedings unless an immigration judge first finds, after a pre-detention hearing, that the government proved flight risk or danger by clear and convincing evidence. The court declined to order a bond hearing under § 1226(a).
Key Takeaways
- Mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) was unconstitutional as applied because Pena Noy received no individualized process addressing the basis for his confinement.
- The court ordered immediate release rather than a bond hearing because the government identified no process for Pena Noy to pursue and did not contend that § 1226(a) applied.
- ICE may not re-detain Pena Noy during his removal proceedings without a prior immigration-court hearing and clear-and-convincing proof that he presents a flight risk or danger.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes statutory authority for mandatory immigration detention from the separate constitutional requirement of procedural due process. Even after acknowledging Fifth Circuit precedent treating certain noncitizens as subject to § 1225(b)(2), the court concluded that detention without any individualized assessment was unlawful on the facts presented.
The remedy is also significant: the court ordered release within 48 hours and imposed procedural protections against re-detention, rather than directing the government merely to conduct a later bond hearing.