Ahmed M. v. Bondi

Background

Ahmed M. challenged his immigration detention under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the federal law that allows a court to review whether executive detention is lawful. The opinion states that Ahmed is a citizen of Somalia and entered the United States without inspection near Tecate, California, on February 27, 2024. Border Patrol agents arrested him that day and served him with a notice requiring him to appear in removal proceedings.

Ahmed was later released under an order of release on recognizance issued under § 1226. The opinion states that he complied with the conditions of supervision and applied for asylum, and that the application remained pending. On December 1, 2025, officers detained him after a traffic stop in Minneapolis. He was eventually held at the Sherburne County Jail. On December 16, he requested a bond hearing, but an immigration judge denied the request after determining that the judge lacked authority to release him under § 1225(b)(2).

Legal Issue

The central issue was whether § 1225(b)(2) or § 1226(a) governed Ahmed’s detention. Section 1225(b)(2) provides for mandatory detention in circumstances involving people seeking admission to the United States. Section 1226(a) permits discretionary detention during removal proceedings and allows release under specified conditions.

The respondents argued that § 1225(b)(2) required Ahmed’s continued detention. Ahmed argued that he was already in the United States and that § 1226(a) governed his detention instead. The court noted that judges in the District of Minnesota, including Judge Tostrud, had previously concluded that § 1226(a) applied in similar cases involving people who had been in the country for some time and whose detention was not connected to an attempt or request to enter the country. The court acknowledged that the statutory-interpretation question was difficult and that some other federal district courts had reached the opposite conclusion.

Court’s Analysis

The court adhered to its prior decision and concluded that Ahmed had been classified under the wrong detention provision. It reasoned that § 1225(b)(2) applies to applicants seeking admission, while § 1226 applies to people already in the country. Ahmed’s December 2025 detention did not occur in connection with an attempt or request to enter the United States.

The court also noted that the respondents did not argue that Ahmed’s initial encounter with Border Patrol in February 2024 made § 1225(b)(2) applicable. Instead, the release order issued after that encounter referred to § 1226. The respondents also did not argue that Ahmed’s pending asylum application changed the analysis.

The court rejected the respondents’ reliance on a Ninth Circuit decision, explaining that the decision did not resolve the dispute between § 1225(b)(2) and § 1226 and did not address detention or bond hearings during removal proceedings. The court found that the Supreme Court’s reasoning in a different decision addressing § 1226 supported the court’s interpretation.

Remedy and Disposition

The court separately considered the appropriate remedy. It explained that § 1226(a) requires an arrest warrant before discretionary detention under that provision may occur. Ahmed had asked the respondents to produce any warrant authorizing his arrest under § 1226, but the respondents had not produced one or argued that release would be improper.

The court concluded that release was an available and appropriate remedy for detention lacking a lawful statutory basis. It therefore granted Ahmed M.’s petition as follows:

1. The court declared that Ahmed was not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). 2. The respondents were ordered to release Ahmed from custody as soon as practicable, subject to the conditions of his February 27, 2024 order of release on recognizance.

The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.