Rivera Giorges v. Kaiser

Background

Alex Rivera Giorges and Sokha Khan, both described as noncitizens, were previously released from Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody through a court-ordered bail process in a prior related proceeding. The plaintiffs alleged that they feared Immigration and Customs Enforcement would detain them again and keep them indefinitely.

Rivera Giorges became a lawful permanent resident after coming to the United States from El Salvador at age eleven. The opinion states that he was convicted of second-degree murder and conspiracy in 1992, later completed criminal custody, and was released from Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody in 2020 with an ankle monitor. The opinion also states that he has continued litigating his immigration case, has a pending motion to reopen proceedings to seek protection under the Convention Against Torture, and has complied with the conditions of his release.

Khan came to the United States from Cambodia as a child, was admitted as a refugee in 1983, and later became a lawful permanent resident. After serving prison time for convictions identified in the opinion, he was released from Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody in 2010 through the same bail process. The opinion states that he lives with and helps care for his mother and had a scheduled check-in at the San Francisco field office on September 10, 2025.

Legal standard

The court applied the standard used for a preliminary injunction to the request for a temporary restraining order. That standard requires considering whether the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits, likely to suffer irreparable harm without relief, whether the balance of equities favors them, and whether an injunction serves the public interest. The court also considered the requirements for issuing an order without advance notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b).

Court’s reasoning

The court found that the Rule 65(b) requirements were met because the plaintiffs’ attorney provided specific facts showing that immediate and irreparable harm could occur before the respondents could respond, and counsel had attempted to contact the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California.

On the merits, the court stated that constitutional protections apply to citizens and noncitizens within the United States. It concluded that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in showing that they should receive notice and a hearing before a neutral decisionmaker before being taken back into custody. Applying the due-process factors concerning the private interest affected, the risk of an erroneous deprivation, the value of additional safeguards, and the government’s interests and burdens, the court found that those factors favored the plaintiffs.

The court also found that renewed detention would likely cause irreparable harm to the plaintiffs’ liberty interests. It determined that the balance of equities and the public interest favored relief because the plaintiffs faced significant harm, while the respondents would face at most a short delay in detention and would not be legally harmed by being prevented from carrying out an unconstitutional detention.

Order

The court granted the plaintiffs’ ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order. The respondents were enjoined and restrained from re-detaining Rivera Giorges and Khan without notice and a pre-detention hearing before a neutral decisionmaker on whether detention was legally justified. The respondents were also restrained from removing the plaintiffs from the United States.

The temporary restraining order remains in effect until September 23, 2025, at 5 p.m. The plaintiffs must serve the respondents with the petition, motion, and order and file proof of service by September 12, 2025, at 5 p.m. The respondents must appear at a September 22, 2025 hearing and show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue. Until further order, the plaintiffs may not be deported, removed, or transferred outside the United States.