Hakan K. v. Noem
Hakan K. v. Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in her official capacity; Todd M. Lyons, Acting Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in his official capacity; Peter Berg, Director, St. Paul Field Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in his official capacity; Samuel J. Olson, Field Office Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations, Chicago Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Mellissa Harper, Louisiana Field Office Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in her official capacity; and Eleazar Garcia, Warden of the Alexandria Staging Center, Alexandria, Louisiana, in his official capacity.
- Jeffrey Bryan
- 0:25-cv-04722
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 6
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Hakan K. v. Noem, Judge Bryan granted an emergency order blocking the government from deporting a Turkish asylum seeker pending review of his detention.
Noncitizens — particularly those from countries with pending asylum claims — who have been released on bond under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 but are later re-detained by immigration authorities under the mandatory-detention provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1225 and face imminent removal. Also relevant to immigration attorneys and advocates tracking emergency TRO practice in habeas petitions filed after a detainee has been transferred to another jurisdiction.
What happened
In Hakan K. v. Kristi Noem et al., No. 25-CV-4722, a Turkish national named Hakan K. filed an emergency motion asking a federal court to stop the government from deporting him while his legal challenge to his detention remained pending. Hakan K. entered the United States in 2023, was released on bond, and later filed for asylum. On December 1, 2025, immigration authorities arrested him without explanation — allegedly based on his perceived ethnicity — and transferred him to a deportation staging facility in Louisiana. He alleged he may have unknowingly signed a voluntary deportation form due to limited English proficiency.
The court evaluated the emergency request under a four-part test: (1) whether Hakan K. would suffer irreparable harm without the order, (2) whether the harm to him outweighed any harm to the government, (3) whether he was likely to succeed on the legal merits, and (4) whether the public interest favored relief. On the merits, Hakan K. argues that the government is detaining him under the wrong legal provision — using a mandatory-detention statute (8 U.S.C. § 1225) that does not apply to him, when he had previously been released on bond under a different statute (8 U.S.C. § 1226). Courts across the country have repeatedly rejected the government's use of § 1225 in similar circumstances.
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan granted the emergency temporary restraining order. The court found that deportation would cause irreparable harm by cutting off Hakan K.'s access to his attorney, ending his ability to participate in court proceedings, and potentially mooting his asylum application. The government, by contrast, faced no identifiable harm from a brief delay in removal. The court also found Hakan K. very likely to succeed on the legal merits and that the public interest in due process and the rule of law outweighed the interest in his immediate deportation. The order bars the government from removing Hakan K. from the United States and expires in fourteen days unless extended.
The detailed version
- Hakan K. v. Noem · No. 0:25-cv-04722
- Jeffrey M. Bryan
- Dec. 23, 2025
Background
Hakan K. is a Turkish national who entered the United States in October 2023. Upon entry, he was taken into custody and then released on bond pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226, which governs detention of noncitizens pending a final removal decision. On December 6, 2023, he filed an application for asylum and withholding of removal to Turkey, which remained pending at the time of this order. He had no criminal history, had never missed a court hearing, and held a valid work permit. The Department of Homeland Security had set a removal hearing for March 12, 2026.
On December 1, 2025, immigration enforcement officers arrested Hakan K. in a Home Depot parking lot without stating a reason. The Amended Petition alleges the arrest was based on his perceived ethnicity. He was initially held in Minnesota, then transferred to the Alexandria Staging Center in Alexandria, Louisiana — a facility the petition characterizes as a staging location for deportation flights. The government justified his detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), a mandatory-detention provision that applies to certain arriving noncitizens.
Hakan K. contends that because he had previously been released on bond under § 1226, the government cannot lawfully reclassify him as subject to mandatory detention under § 1225. He also alleged that, due to limited English proficiency, he may have inadvertently signed a voluntary deportation document while believing it concerned his release on bond.
Legal Standard
The court applied the four-factor test for a temporary restraining order (TRO) — an emergency court order preserving the status quo until a fuller hearing can be held — set out in Dataphase Systems, Inc. v. C L Systems, Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 114 (8th Cir. 1981). The factors are: (1) the threat of irreparable harm to the moving party; (2) the balance of harms between the parties; (3) the probability that the moving party will succeed on the merits; and (4) the public interest. No single factor is determinative; courts weigh all circumstances flexibly. The standard for a TRO is the same as for a preliminary injunction.
Analysis
Irreparable Harm
The court found that deportation would cause Hakan K. immediate and irreparable harm — meaning harm that cannot be undone after it occurs. Specifically, removal would likely: (1) deprive him of access to his retained legal counsel; (2) prevent him from participating in the ongoing litigation; and (3) potentially moot (render legally void) his pending asylum application. The court quoted prior district court decisions holding that unlawful detention is a prime example of irreparable harm. The court noted concern that Hakan K. might be removed to a place where he faces severe persecution, but stated it lacked sufficient information at that time to assess that specific risk.
Balance of Harms
The court found no indication that the government would suffer any harm from a temporary order preventing removal while the case was pending. It cited the Eighth Circuit's observation that equities strongly favor an injunction when an agency action would be irreversible but an injunction would impose no present harm on the other side.
Likelihood of Success on the Merits
The court found that Hakan K.'s legal argument raised a substantial question about the legality of his detention. His core argument is that individuals released on bond under § 1226 cannot be re-detained under the mandatory-detention provisions of § 1225. The court noted that courts have "overwhelmingly" rejected the government's position on this issue, citing a district court observation that the government had been told "nearly 300 times (and counting) that its mandatory-detention scheme is unlawful." The court concluded that Hakan K. appeared "very likely to succeed on the merits."
Public Interest
The court found that the public interest in ensuring due process, judicial review, and the rule of law outweighed the public interest in Hakan K.'s deportation.
Jurisdiction
As a threshold matter — meaning before reaching the substantive analysis — the court addressed whether it retained jurisdiction (legal authority to hear the case) after Hakan K. was physically transferred to Louisiana. The court held that his transfer after the petition was filed did not deprive the Minnesota court of jurisdiction, citing Weeks v. Wyrick, 638 F.2d 690, 692 (8th Cir. 1981).
Bond
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) ordinarily requires a party obtaining a TRO to post a bond (a sum of money to compensate the other side if the order turns out to have been wrongly issued). The court waived the bond requirement because the TRO was aimed at preventing constitutional deprivations, the government faced no identifiable monetary loss, and the matter was closely tied to important public interests.
Disposition
The court granted the Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. The order (1) prohibits Respondents from removing, transferring, or facilitating the removal of Hakan K. from the United States; (2) prohibits any other person or agency from doing so on Respondents' behalf; and (3) takes effect immediately and expires fourteen days after entry unless Hakan K. shows good cause for an extension, in which case the court stated it would set a separate briefing schedule.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.