Hinestroza v. Albarran

Background

Narcilo Caicedo Hinestroza, Jairo Andres Dangond Lopez, and Jhelvin Jherh Ramos Huaman filed a petition asking the court to review their detention. The respondents were Sergio Albarran, identified as the Field Office Director of the San Francisco Immigration and Customs Enforcement office; Todd Lyons, the Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Kristi Noem, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; and Pam Bondi, the U.S. Attorney General. All were sued in their official capacities.

The petitioners applied for a temporary restraining order seeking release from detention. The court had already granted that request. After receiving briefing on a preliminary injunction and holding a hearing, the court ruled on the preliminary injunction.

Court’s Analysis

The court said the material facts were undisputed and that the government had not shown that any material facts had changed since the temporary restraining order. The court found that the petitioners had raised a serious legal question and shown a likelihood of success on the merits of whether they could be detained in the circumstances presented. The court also found that the petitioners had sufficiently shown the other factors required for a preliminary injunction, which is a court order providing temporary protection while a case continues.

The court said the government’s arguments were substantively identical to arguments it had made against the temporary restraining order. Because the court had already rejected those arguments and the government had not provided a good reason to reach a different conclusion, the court incorporated its earlier reasoning.

Order

The court granted a preliminary injunction on these terms:

1. The respondents, along with their officers, agents, employees, attorneys, and other covered persons who know of the injunction, may not detain the three petitioners without a pre-detention hearing before a neutral decisionmaker. 2. The same covered persons may not transfer the three petitioners out of the district without the court’s prior approval.

The court stated that the government could request modification of the injunction if circumstances materially changed. It also ruled that the petitioners did not need to provide security under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) because there was no realistic likelihood of harm to the respondents from the injunction. The parties were directed to jointly propose a briefing schedule for the detention petition by November 28, 2025.