GARRO PINCHI v. Noem

Background

Frescia Garro Pinchi filed a petition challenging her immigration detention and asked for an emergency temporary restraining order. The respondents named in the petition were Acting Field Office Director Polly Kaiser, Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement Todd M. Lyons, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, and Attorney General Pam Bondi.

The opinion states that Garro Pinchi came to the United States on April 14, 2023, seeking asylum. She was briefly detained when she arrived and later released on her own recognizance after officials determined she was not a flight risk. She then applied for asylum and attended all required immigration hearings for more than two years. The opinion also states that she has no criminal history and works full time.

On July 3, 2025, Garro Pinchi appeared at the San Francisco Immigration Court. The Department of Homeland Security attorney asked to dismiss her immigration case, but she opposed the request. The immigration judge gave her time to respond and continued the hearing until July 31, 2025. The judge stated that he believed dismissal was intended to place her in expedited removal proceedings.

After Garro Pinchi left the courthouse, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrested her. The opinion says it appeared that the agents did not have a warrant and did not explain the reason for the arrest. Garro Pinchi also has medical conditions requiring ongoing care and medication, including conditions that the court found could worsen in detention.

Legal Standard

The court applied the standard used for a preliminary injunction, an order intended to prevent harm while a case continues. To obtain that relief, a party generally must show a likelihood of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without relief, that the balance of hardships favors the party, and that an injunction serves the public interest. A temporary restraining order is intended to preserve the prior situation and prevent irreparable harm until a preliminary-injunction hearing.

The court also considered Rule 65(b)(1), which permits an emergency order without advance notice when specific facts show that immediate and irreparable harm may occur before the opposing party can respond. The court found that requirement satisfied because Garro Pinchi’s attorney described the danger of immediate harm and stated that counsel had attempted to contact the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that Garro Pinchi had shown at least serious questions about whether due process required notice and a hearing before she could be detained again. The court explained that freedom from government custody is a protected liberty interest and that people released from immigration custody on bond may have a protected interest in remaining out of custody.

Applying the three-part due-process test from Mathews v. Eldridge, the court found that Garro Pinchi had a substantial interest in remaining free so she could live at home, work, obtain medical care, and provide for her family. The court also found a risk that she could be wrongly deprived of her liberty without an additional safeguard, such as a hearing before detention. It considered the government’s interest in detaining her without a hearing to be low, particularly because she had consistently attended immigration hearings and had no criminal record.

The court found likely immediate and irreparable harm because immigration detention could impose economic and family-related harms and could worsen Garro Pinchi’s medical conditions. It also concluded that the balance of hardships and the public interest favored relief because the government would face only a short delay in detention, while Garro Pinchi faced significant health and liberty risks.

Order

The court granted Garro Pinchi’s ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order. It ordered the respondents to release her immediately and prohibited them from detaining her again without notice and a pre-detention hearing before a neutral decision-maker. The order was entered to preserve the status quo and remains effective until July 14, 2025, at 5:00 p.m.

The court did not require Garro Pinchi to post security. It ordered service of the petition, motion, and order, required the respondents to file a status report confirming her release, and ordered the respondents to appear at a July 14, 2025 hearing to explain why a preliminary injunction should not issue. The opinion does not decide the ultimate disposition of the habeas petition.