Enamorado v. Kaiser

Background

Edwin Yobani Enamorado sued Polly Kaiser, Todd M. Lyons, Kristi Noem, and Pamela Bondi in their official capacities. The opinion identifies Kaiser as the Acting San Francisco Field Office Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Lyons as the Acting Director of that agency, Noem as the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and Bondi as the Attorney General of the United States. The opinion collectively calls these defendants “the Government.”

Enamorado was born in Honduras and entered the United States with his family on December 13, 2018. An immigration judge granted him release from custody on an $8,000 bond in 2019 after finding that he was neither a danger to the community nor a flight risk. In 2022, an immigration judge granted him withholding of removal under 8 U.S. Code § 1231(b)(3). The opinion states that he lives with his family in Martinez, California, runs a landscaping business, and reports having had no contact with the criminal justice system for nearly six years.

On April 10, 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement sent a letter to Enamorado’s bond obligor requiring him to report to the agency’s San Francisco office on May 14, 2025, for an interview. Enamorado feared that he would be detained at the interview and removed to a third country under an internal Government directive. He asked for a temporary restraining order preventing the Government from re-detaining him while the case continued.

Legal standard and court’s analysis

The court applied the same standard used for a preliminary injunction. Enamorado had to show a likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without immediate relief, that the balance of equities favored him, and that an injunction served the public interest. The court also noted that relief may be available when serious legal questions exist, the balance of equities strongly favors the plaintiff, and the other requirements are met.

The court found serious questions about Enamorado’s due-process claims under the Fifth Amendment and found that he was likely to succeed on those claims. The court explained that freedom from government custody and detention is a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause, including for people facing immigration detention.

The court noted that Enamorado had been granted withholding of removal, had remained in the United States under bond since 2019, and alleged consistent compliance with the law. The court said it had no information suggesting that he would fail to appear for immigration proceedings or posed a risk to the public. It concluded that detention would risk irreparable injury and that the balance of equities favored maintaining the existing situation for a short period. The court also found that the temporary injunction was in the public interest.

Order

The court GRANTED Enamorado’s motion for a temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo pending further briefing and a hearing. The order enjoins and restrains the defendants and specified persons acting with them from re-arresting or re-detaining Enamorado before a further court order, including during or after the May 21 hearing, on grounds related to his immigration status.

The order does not excuse Enamorado from following Department of Homeland Security or Immigration and Customs Enforcement directives; it specifically requires him to report for the May 14 interview. The court required no security bond. Defendants’ response was due May 15, 2025, Enamorado’s reply was due May 19, 2025, and the court set an in-person hearing for May 21, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. The temporary restraining order remains effective until the earlier of May 22, 2025, at 5:00 p.m., or a further court order.