Rodriguez Diaz v. Kaiser

Background

Arnoldo Rodriguez Diaz filed a petition seeking relief from immigration detention and an ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order. He asked the court to temporarily bar the Department of Homeland Security, its agents, employees, and successors from re-detaining him until he had an opportunity to challenge any re-detention before a neutral decisionmaker.

According to the opinion, Rodriguez Diaz was born in El Salvador and had lived in the United States since age nine. The Department of Homeland Security began removal proceedings against him when he was fifteen. After he pleaded guilty to domestic-violence charges and completed his sentence, Immigration and Customs Enforcement took him into custody. He spent seventeen months in immigration custody between 2019 and 2020 before being released on a $10,000 bond pursuant to an order by District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. The government placed him on electronic monitoring and enrolled him in an intensive supervision program; the ankle monitor was removed in April 2022.

The opinion states that Rodriguez Diaz had remained out of custody for five years, complied with his release conditions, and served as the sole caretaker for his minor U.S.-citizen son. He had also recently become the father of a newborn U.S.-citizen daughter. On June 13, 2025, an intensive supervision program message directed him to report in person on June 14 or 15, without explaining why. His counsel tried to obtain clarification from the program and the San Francisco immigration office but received no response. Rodriguez Diaz had another immigration check-in scheduled for June 30, 2025, and several pending applications for relief from removal.

Legal standard and analysis

The court explained that the standard for a temporary restraining order is the same as the standard for a preliminary injunction. The applicant must show a likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without relief, that the balance of hardships favors relief, and that relief serves the public interest. The court also recognized a lower standard allowing relief when there are serious questions about the merits, the balance of hardships sharply favors the applicant, and the other requirements are met.

The court found that Rodriguez Diaz had shown at least serious questions about his due-process claim and that the balance of hardships sharply favored him. The Fifth Amendment protects liberty from deprivation without due process of law. The court relied on prior decisions recognizing that people released from immigration custody on bond can have a protected liberty interest in remaining out of custody on bond.

Applying the factors from Mathews v. Eldridge, which evaluate the private interest affected, the risk of an erroneous deprivation, the value of additional safeguards, and the government’s burden, the court found that a hearing before re-detention was required at this stage. Rodriguez Diaz had a substantial interest in remaining out of custody, the court identified a risk of erroneous deprivation that a hearing could reduce, and it found the government’s interest in re-detaining him without a hearing to be low, particularly because he had long complied with reporting requirements.

The court also found likely immediate and irreparable harm. It noted the economic and family harms associated with immigration detention and specifically considered the effect on Rodriguez Diaz’s two minor children, including his newborn daughter. The court further found that the balance of equities and the public interest favored relief because the public has an interest in procedural protections against unlawful detention. The potential harm to the respondents was described as minimal because the order would only briefly delay detention if the government ultimately showed that detention was intended and warranted.

Order

The court granted Rodriguez Diaz’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 him without notice and a hearing. The order was set to remain in effect until Monday, June 23, 2025, at 5:00 p.m.

The court determined that no security or bond was required because the risk of harm to the government was minimal. It also ordered the respondents to show cause at an in-person hearing why a preliminary injunction should not issue and set a deadline for their response. The hearing date is not clearly readable in the provided opinion text. This order granted temporary relief; it did not state that a preliminary injunction had been issued.