Ortiz Calderon v. Kaiser

Background

Carolina Ortiz Calderon filed a petition seeking release from immigration custody and an ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order. The opinion says she is an asylum seeker who came to the United States from Colombia in 2024. According to the petition, federal agents initially released her after determining that she was not a flight risk or danger to the community. She allegedly attended her immigration-court hearings, filed an asylum application within the one-year deadline, and had no criminal history.

On August 7, 2025, Ortiz Calderon attended a hearing in San Francisco Immigration Court. The government moved to dismiss its removal case, and the immigration judge set another hearing for September 4, 2025. The petition alleges that three Department of Homeland Security agents arrested Ortiz Calderon minutes after she left the courtroom. The agents allegedly did not show a warrant and incorrectly told her that the immigration judge had dismissed her case. The opinion states that she was detained at 630 Sansome Street in San Francisco.

Ortiz Calderon argued that her arrest and detention violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. She raised both a substantive claim—asserting that the respondents had no valid basis to detain her—and a procedural claim—asserting that she was not given a bond hearing before detention.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the standard used for a preliminary injunction. That standard requires a showing of likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without immediate relief, and favorable consideration of the balance of hardships and the public interest. The court also found that the requirements for issuing a temporary restraining order without advance notice were satisfied because the petitioner’s counsel identified a risk of immediate and irreparable harm and had attempted to notify the government.

The court found that Ortiz Calderon was likely to succeed on her procedural due-process claim. It stated that the Due Process Clause entitled her to a bond hearing before an immigration judge before any arrest or detention. The court also found that continued detention without such a hearing would likely cause irreparable harm because it involved a likely unconstitutional loss of liberty. It concluded that the balance of hardships and the public interest favored temporary relief.

The court determined that immediate release was appropriate to restore the status quo—the last uncontested situation before the dispute. It exercised its discretion not to require a security bond from Ortiz Calderon. The court’s order addressed temporary relief; the opinion did not finally decide the underlying habeas petition or the ultimate legality of the detention.

Order

Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin granted Ortiz Calderon’s ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo pending further briefing and a hearing. The respondents were ordered to immediately release Ortiz Calderon from custody. They were also enjoined and restrained from re-detaining her without notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, and from removing her from the United States.

The temporary restraining order was set to remain in effect until Friday, August 22, 2025, at 5:00 p.m. The respondents were ordered to provide a status report confirming her release by August 10, 2025. They were also ordered to appear and show cause on August 22 why a preliminary injunction should not issue, with a response due August 15 and any reply due August 19. The court noted that it retained jurisdiction even if the government transferred Ortiz Calderon after the petition was filed, so it did not separately order that she remain in the Northern District of California.