Ramirez Clavijo v. Kaiser

Background

Paula Sofia Ramirez Clavijo filed a petition challenging her immigration detention and an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order against Polly Kaiser, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem, and Pamela Bondi in their official capacities. The opinion states that Ramirez Clavijo is an asylum seeker who fled persecution in Colombia, has lived in California for nearly two years, applied for asylum-related relief in February 2025, and has no criminal record.

According to declarations submitted by Ramirez Clavijo, federal agents initially detained her after she entered the United States but released her after determining that she was not a flight risk or danger to the community. On July 24, 2025, she attended a routine immigration-court hearing. The immigration judge did not grant the government’s motion to dismiss her case to begin expedited-removal proceedings and instead set another hearing for August 21, 2025. Agents arrested Ramirez Clavijo before she left the courthouse. The opinion states that they did not show her a warrant, verify her identity, or explain why they were arresting her.

Ramirez Clavijo alleged that detention was causing serious and continuing harm. The opinion describes her history as a survivor of sexual assault, anxiety and depression, and alopecia, a condition involving widespread hair loss. At the time she filed, she was in Respondents’ physical custody in the district, and immigration agents indicated that they intended to transfer her to another detention facility.

Legal standard

The court explained that the standard for a temporary restraining order is the same as the standard for a preliminary injunction. Generally, the person seeking emergency relief must show likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without relief, a favorable balance of hardships, and that an injunction would serve the public interest. A temporary restraining order is intended to preserve the existing situation and prevent irreparable harm until a hearing can occur.

The court also found that the requirements for issuing a temporary restraining order without advance notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1) were satisfied. Counsel had provided specific facts showing that immediate harm could occur before Respondents could respond and had stated that counsel attempted to contact the Civil Division Chief at the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

Court’s reasoning

The court found at least serious questions about the merits of Ramirez Clavijo’s due-process claim and concluded that the balance of hardships sharply favored her. The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause protects liberty, including freedom from government custody and detention. The court relied on decisions recognizing that people released from immigration custody on bond may have a protected liberty interest in remaining out of custody on bond.

Applying the three-factor test from Mathews v. Eldridge, the court concluded that Ramirez Clavijo’s private interest in remaining out of custody was substantial, that a hearing before detention could reduce the risk of an erroneous deprivation of liberty, and that the government’s interest in re-detaining her without a hearing was low. The court noted that she had attended prior immigration hearings and had no criminal record.

The court also found likely immediate and irreparable harm from continued detention, including the possible worsening of her medical conditions and the loss of constitutional liberty. It concluded that the balance of the equities and the public interest favored relief because the public has an interest in procedural protections against unlawful detention, while the potential harm to Respondents from a short delay in detention was minimal.

Order

The court granted Ramirez Clavijo’s ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order and determined that no security or bond was required because the risk of harm to the government was minimal. Respondents were enjoined from transferring her out of the district or deporting her while the habeas proceedings continued.

The court ordered Respondents to release Ramirez Clavijo immediately and barred them from re-detaining her without notice and a pre-detention hearing before a neutral decisionmaker. The order stated that these restrictions would remain in effect until August 8, 2025. Respondents were ordered to provide a status report confirming her release by July 29, 2025, and to appear at an August 7, 2025 hearing to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue. The opinion does not state the later outcome of that hearing or the habeas petition.