Hakan K. v. Noem

Background

Hakan K. is a Turkish national who entered the United States in October 2023. According to the amended petition, upon entry he was taken into custody and then released on bond under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 — the statute governing detention of noncitizens whose cases are pending before an immigration judge — pending a final determination on his removal. 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. The petition states he has no criminal history, has never missed a court hearing, and holds a valid work permit. In September 2025, the Department of Homeland Security issued a notice setting a removal hearing for March 12, 2026.

On December 1, 2025, immigration authorities detained Hakan K. in a Home Depot parking lot without providing any reason. The amended petition alleges the detention was based on his perceived ethnicity. He was initially held in Minnesota, then transferred to the Alexandria Staging Center in Louisiana — a facility the petition describes as a staging location for deportation flights. The government justified his detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), a mandatory detention provision applicable to certain arriving noncitizens, rather than under § 1226.

Legal Claims

Hakan K.'s core legal argument is that because he was originally released on bond under § 1226, re-detention under § 1225(b)(2)'s mandatory detention framework is unlawful. He filed his emergency motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) on December 22, 2025, asserting imminent risk of deportation given his transfer to a staging facility. He also raised concern that, due to limited English proficiency, he may have unknowingly signed a voluntary deportation document believing it concerned his release on bond.

The TRO sought two things: (1) an order restraining respondents from removing him from the United States while the amended petition is pending; and (2) a requirement of notice to his counsel and an opportunity to be heard before any removal.

Jurisdiction

As a threshold matter, the court addressed whether Hakan K.'s physical transfer to Louisiana after filing deprived the Minnesota federal court of jurisdiction over his petition for a writ of habeas corpus (a court order requiring the government to justify a person's detention). The court found it did not, citing Weeks v. Wyrick, 638 F.2d 690, 692 (8th Cir. 1981).

TRO Standard

Courts in the Eighth Circuit apply the four-factor Dataphase test when evaluating TRO motions — the same standard used for preliminary injunctions: (1) the threat of irreparable harm to the movant; (2) the balance of harms between the parties; (3) the probability of success on the merits; and (4) the public interest. No single factor is determinative; courts weigh all circumstances flexibly. The central question is whether justice requires preserving the status quo until the merits are determined. The moving party bears the burden.

Application of Factors

Irreparable Harm The court found that deportation before resolution of the case would cause concrete, imminent, and irreversible harm: Hakan K. could lose access to his retained attorneys, be unable to participate in ongoing litigation, and his pending asylum application could be rendered moot. The court quoted Escalante v. Bondi for the proposition that deprivation of access to retained counsel in civil proceedings is plainly harmful to a litigant. The court also noted concern — though it stated it lacked sufficient information to fully assess — that Hakan K. may face severe persecution if removed to Turkey.

Balance of Harms The court found no indication that the government respondents would suffer any harm from a temporary order prohibiting Hakan K.'s removal from the United States while the action is pending.

Likelihood of Success on the Merits The court found Hakan K. appears very likely to succeed, noting that courts have "overwhelmingly rejected" the government's position that § 1225(b)(2) justifies detention in circumstances like his. The court cited Fuentes v. Olson, which noted the government "has now been told nearly 300 times (and counting) that its mandatory-detention scheme is unlawful."

Public Interest The court found the public interest in deportation is outweighed by the public interest in ensuring due process, judicial review, and the rule of law.

Bond The court waived the bond requirement ordinarily imposed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) — a rule requiring parties who obtain an injunction to post security for potential losses — because the TRO seeks to prevent constitutional deprivations, the government faces no identifiable risk of monetary loss, and the matter involves important public interests.

Ruling