AGUILAR GARCIA v. Bondi

Background

Ricardo Aguilar Garcia filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and an ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order against Acting Field Office Director Polly Kaiser, Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement Todd M. Lyons, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, and United States Attorney General Pam Bondi. He sought to prevent the Department of Homeland Security, its agents, employees, and successors from re-detaining him until he had an opportunity to challenge re-detention before a neutral decisionmaker.

Garcia was born in Mexico and had lived in the United States since approximately age three. He had previously held Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals status and had recently filed a new application. He had been held in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody during 2018 and 2019, then released on bond under an order of supervision. The opinion states that he remained out of custody and complied with reporting requirements after his release.

On June 13, 2025, Garcia received notice that he had to report in person to an Intensive Supervision Appearance Program office in San Francisco on June 14 or 15. The notice gave no reason, and the program did not respond to inquiries from Garcia or his counsel. Garcia feared that he would be re-detained at the appointment.

Court's reasoning

The court found that the requirements for issuing a temporary restraining order without notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1) were met because Garcia's attorney provided specific facts showing that immediate and irreparable injury could occur before the respondents could oppose the motion. The attorney also stated that counsel had tried to contact the Civil Division Chief at the United States Attorney's Office.

Applying the standard for temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions, the court concluded that Garcia had shown at least serious questions about the merits and that the balance of hardships tipped sharply in his favor. The court relied on the Fifth Amendment's protection against deprivation of liberty without due process. It found that people released from immigration custody on bond have a protectable liberty interest in remaining out of custody on bond.

The court also applied the three-part due-process framework from Mathews v. Eldridge. It found that Garcia had a substantial private interest in remaining out of custody, that a pre-detention hearing could help prevent an erroneous deprivation of liberty, and that the government's interest in re-detaining him without a hearing was low in light of his long compliance with reporting requirements.

The court found that Garcia was likely to suffer immediate and irreparable harm without relief, including the economic and family-related harms associated with immigration detention and the possible deprivation of constitutional rights. It further found that the balance of equities and the public interest favored Garcia because procedural protections against unlawful detention serve the public interest. The court viewed the potential harm to the government as minimal because the order would cause only a short delay if the government ultimately showed that detention was intended and warranted.

The court determined that no security, or bond, was required because the risk of harm to the government from the injunction was minimal.

Order

Judge Labson Freeman granted Garcia's ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo pending further briefing and a hearing. The respondents were enjoined and restrained from re-detaining Garcia without notice and a hearing.

The order remained in effect until Monday, June 23, 2025, at 5:00 p.m. The court ordered service of the habeas petition, motion, and order by June 16, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. The respondents were ordered to appear at a June 23, 2025, hearing and show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue.