Zakzouk v. Becerra

Background

Khalid Fawzi Zakzouk filed a petition seeking relief from immigration detention and an emergency, one-sided motion for a temporary restraining order. He alleged that he is a stateless Palestinian who entered the United States in 1988, was ordered removed in 2000, and was released after immigration officials determined that he could not be removed to any country. He was placed under an order of supervision requiring regular check-ins.

Zakzouk was detained again in late 2007 and released on January 10, 2008. According to the allegations, immigration officials again determined that his removal was not reasonably foreseeable. He remained out of custody for 17 years, complied with all check-in requirements, and had not missed an appointment. He alleged that he is the primary caretaker for his 15-year-old United States-citizen daughter, who has severe depressive disorder and anxiety, and that he manages his household and supports his spouse’s career.

At a July 17, 2025 check-in, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer told Zakzouk to return to apply for travel documents for Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Zakzouk stated that he is not a citizen of either country. The officer responded that “things are different now.” His next appointment was set for July 28, 2025. After his counsel received no response to an inquiry seeking clarification, Zakzouk filed the emergency motion on July 26, 2025.

Legal standard

The court applied the same standard used for a preliminary injunction. That standard generally requires showing a likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without relief, a favorable balance of hardships, and that an injunction serves the public interest. The court also recognized that relief may issue when there are serious questions about the merits, the balance of hardships sharply favors the plaintiff, and the other requirements are satisfied.

Because Zakzouk sought an order without advance notice to the opposing parties, the court separately found that the requirements for that type of emergency order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1) were met. The court found that specific facts showed that immediate and irreparable harm could occur before the respondents could be heard and that counsel had attempted to contact the United States Attorney’s Office.

Court’s analysis

The court found that Zakzouk had shown at least serious questions about his claim that due process required a hearing before he could be detained again. The court explained that freedom from government custody is a protected liberty interest and relied on prior decisions finding that people released from immigration custody may have a protectable interest in remaining out of custody.

Applying the three-part balancing test from Mathews v. Eldridge, the court found that Zakzouk had a substantial private interest in remaining free after 17 years, that a pre-detention hearing could reduce the risk of an erroneous detention, and that the government’s interest in detaining him without a hearing appeared low. The court noted his long compliance with reporting requirements and the lack of a recent change in circumstances. It also stated that civil immigration detention is permissible only to prevent flight or protect the community, and that neither basis appeared applicable on the facts presented.

The court found an imminent risk of re-detention based on the new policy described in the petition, the officer’s comments, and the request for travel documents. It concluded that detention could cause irreparable harm, including economic burdens and harm to Zakzouk’s family, particularly his daughter. The balance of hardships and the public interest also favored Zakzouk because the order would cause the government only a short delay if detention were ultimately shown to be intended and warranted, while detention could impose significant hardship on Zakzouk and his family.

Order

The court granted Zakzouk’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 pre-detention hearing before a neutral decisionmaker. The order remains in effect until August 6, 2025, at 5:00 p.m. The court did not require security, or a bond, because it found minimal risk of harm to the government.

The court ordered the respondents to show cause at an August 6, 2025 hearing why a preliminary injunction should not issue. It set deadlines for the respondents’ response and any reply and required Zakzouk to file proof of service or a status report by July 29, 2025.