Garcia v. Kaiser

Background

Ricardo Aguilar Garcia filed a petition challenging his immigration detention and moved for a preliminary injunction. He sought an order preventing the Department of Homeland Security, its agents, employees, and successors from detaining him again until he had an opportunity to challenge that detention before a neutral decisionmaker.

The court granted Garcia’s request for a temporary restraining order and required the government to explain why a preliminary injunction should not issue. The government agreed that the temporary order would remain in effect while the preliminary-injunction motion was being considered.

Garcia sought review of the removal order and later sought review of the denial of a motion to reopen. The Ninth Circuit denied those petitions and later issued its mandate on September 10, 2025. Garcia also based his motion to reopen on his April 10, 2025 marriage to a U.S. citizen and stated that he financially supports his wife and five-year-old stepson.

Jurisdiction and detention authority

The government argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested injunction because Garcia’s removal order had become final. The parties agreed that, after the Ninth Circuit’s mandate issued, Garcia’s detention was governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1231 rather than 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).

The court rejected the government’s reliance on 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) at this stage. That provision limits jurisdiction over claims arising from the government’s decisions to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders. The court found that Garcia was not seeking to stop or challenge his removal; he was seeking a hearing before possible re-detention based on his claimed liberty interest in conditional release.

Preliminary-injunction analysis

A preliminary injunction is temporary relief issued before final judgment. To obtain one, a party generally must show a likelihood of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without the injunction, favorable balancing of hardships, and consistency with the public interest. The court focused on the first requirement.

Garcia argued that the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause entitled him to a hearing before re-detention because he had previously been released on bond. The court recognized that freedom from physical restraint is a protected liberty interest and that conditional release can create a protected interest in remaining free from custody.

The court concluded, however, that the legal basis for Garcia’s detention had changed. Because the Ninth Circuit mandate issued on September 10, 2025, Garcia was within the 90-day removal period under § 1231. The statute requires detention during that period. The court contrasted this with § 1226(a), which permits discretionary detention and release on bond or conditional parole.

The court held that Garcia had not shown a likelihood of success, or even serious questions going to the merits, on his claim that due process required a bond hearing during the mandatory 90-day removal period. The court relied on Ninth Circuit precedent stating that detention under § 1231(a)(2) passes constitutional scrutiny. It also distinguished cases involving lengthy detention or detention outside the 90-day removal period.

Because Garcia failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits, the court did not analyze the remaining preliminary-injunction factors. The court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction.

Order to show cause regarding mootness

The court separately questioned whether the habeas petition remained a live dispute. The petition had been based on the government’s detention authority under § 1226, but the court stated that Garcia was now subject to mandatory detention under § 1231(a)(2). The court therefore ordered Garcia to show cause—meaning to explain—why the petition should not be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because it had become moot.

The order required Garcia to respond by November 6, 2025, and permitted the government to file a reply by November 20, 2025. The opinion did not dismiss the habeas petition in this order. It denied the preliminary-injunction motion and ordered Garcia to show cause regarding possible dismissal.