Frank V. v. Samuel J. Olson

Background

Frank V. entered the United States in August 2018 with an authorized tourist visa. In March 2019, he was arrested and placed in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody for allegedly overstaying the visa. An immigration judge granted him a discretionary bond hearing in April 2019, and the record states that he was released on bond by agreement of the parties.

On or about December 10, 2025, Frank V. was again arrested and placed in immigration custody. He remained detained at the Kandiyohi County Jail. He filed a petition concerning his detention and moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. He sought immediate release and an order preventing the respondents from removing him from the District of Minnesota while the case was pending.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the four factors used for temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions: likely irreparable harm, the balance of harms, the likelihood of success on the merits, and the public interest. The court said the central question was whether preserving the current situation until the underlying case could be decided required intervention.

The court found that transferring Frank V. out of the district could cause irreparable harm because he might lose access to counsel, the court might lose jurisdiction over the officials responsible for his custody, and he might be unable to participate in the litigation. The court found no indication that the respondents would be harmed by temporarily preventing a transfer. It also found that judicial review, due process, and preventing unlawful detention served important public interests.

The court further stated that Frank V.’s arguments raised a substantial question about the legality of his detention and that he appeared likely to succeed on his legal argument. The opinion refers to the respondents’ position that a detention provision, section 1225, authorized his detention and states that courts had overwhelmingly rejected that position. These statements concerned the likelihood-of-success factor; the order did not finally decide the underlying detention case.

Order

Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan granted Frank V.’s motion for a temporary restraining order in part. The respondents were ordered not to remove, transfer, or otherwise facilitate Frank V.’s removal from the District of Minnesota. The order also prohibited anyone else from taking those actions on the respondents’ behalf.

The order took effect immediately and was set to expire 14 days after entry unless Frank V. showed good cause for an extension. The court determined that no bond was required because the order sought to prevent constitutional deprivations, the respondents faced no identified risk of monetary loss, and the matter involved important public interests. The opinion does not state that the court ordered Frank V.’s release.