Ruiz Otero v. Kaiser

Background

Maria Elena Ruiz Otero filed a petition and an ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order on behalf of her son, Ismael David Caicedo Ruiz. The respondents were Polly Kaiser, Todd M. Lyons, Kristi Noem, and Pamela Bondi, sued in their official capacities.

According to the record, Caicedo Ruiz is a 20-year-old from Colombia who applied for asylum and sought Special Immigrant Juvenile Status. His applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture were pending in the San Francisco Immigration Court. He entered the United States in November 2023, was released by the Department of Homeland Security on his own recognizance, and attended his required immigration court proceedings. The petition stated that he did not have a criminal record and that the government had previously determined he did not present a flight or community-danger risk.

On August 1, 2025, Caicedo Ruiz attended a master calendar hearing. The government moved to dismiss its removal case, and the immigration judge gave him ten days to respond. A pro bono attorney filed an opposition for him. After Caicedo Ruiz left the courtroom, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrested him. He was then detained in a holding room at 630 Sansome Street.

Ruiz Otero argued that the arrest and detention violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. She asserted both that the respondents lacked a valid interest in detaining him and that he was denied a bond hearing before detention.

Legal standard

The court applied the standard for a preliminary injunction because the standard for a temporary restraining order is the same. The party seeking relief had to show a likelihood of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without immediate relief, that the balance of equities favored relief, and that an injunction served the public interest. The court also considered whether the requirements for issuing a temporary restraining order without advance notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1) were met.

Court’s analysis

The court found that the verified complaint provided specific facts showing that immediate and irreparable harm could occur before the respondents could be heard. Counsel had also attempted to contact the Civil Division Chief at the U.S. Attorney’s Office and had emailed a copy of the habeas petition.

The court concluded that Ruiz Otero had shown a likelihood of success on the claim that Caicedo Ruiz’s ongoing detention violated procedural due process. The court stated that the Due Process Clause entitled him to a bond hearing before an immigration judge before any arrest or detention. It further found that detention without a pre-detention hearing was likely unconstitutional and that the resulting deprivation of liberty constituted irreparable harm.

The court found that the balance of equities and public interest also strongly favored temporary relief. It reasoned that the public had a strong interest in procedural protections against unlawful detention and that the government would face, at most, a short delay in detention if it later established by clear and convincing evidence that detention was necessary to prevent flight or danger to the community.

The court determined that immediate release was appropriate to restore the status quo—the last uncontested situation before the dispute. It also exercised its discretion not to require a bond from Ruiz Otero because it found no realistic likelihood that the respondents would suffer compensable harm from the order.

Order

The court granted Ruiz Otero’s ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo pending further briefing and a hearing. It ordered the respondents to immediately release Caicedo Ruiz from custody. It also barred the respondents from re-detaining him without notice and a pre-detention hearing before a neutral decisionmaker and barred them from removing him from the United States.

The temporary restraining order was to remain in effect until Sunday, August 17, 2025, at 5:00 p.m. The court required the respondents to provide a status report confirming Caicedo Ruiz’s release by August 5, 2025. It also ordered the respondents to appear and show cause at a hearing on August 15, 2025, why a preliminary injunction should not issue, with a response due August 8 and any reply due August 12. The opinion states that the court did not order Caicedo Ruiz to remain in the Northern District because the court would retain jurisdiction if the government transferred him after the petition was properly filed.