Garrison G. v. Bondi

Background

Garrison G. filed an amended petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a procedure that allows a detained person to challenge the legality of custody. He alleged that immigration officials unlawfully re-detained him after previously releasing him under a July 2, 2021 Order of Supervision. The order stated that the agency had not removed him within the legally prescribed period. The opinion states that Garrison G. consistently complied with the supervision conditions, appeared for immigration check-ins, and had no criminal record.

On January 11, 2026, immigration agents forcibly entered Garrison G.’s home without his or his family’s permission, removed him, and detained him. Although Garrison G. and his wife asked for a judicial warrant, the agents did not produce one. Garrison G. remained detained in Minnesota and had not received a written custody decision, a notice explaining the reasons for revoking his supervision, or the required informal interview. The court ordered the respondents to respond by January 15, 2026, but they entered an appearance and did not file a response by the deadline.

Court’s Analysis

The court stated that it had jurisdiction to consider a challenge to continued detention under § 2241 because Garrison G. challenged his current detention rather than the underlying removal order. The court granted the petition on the separate ground that it was unopposed. Independently, the court concluded that Garrison G. had shown that his re-detention was unlawful.

The court held that 8 C.F.R. § 241.13 applied because the Order of Supervision and Garrison G.’s release reflected a determination that removal was not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future. Under that regulation, release may be revoked for a violation of supervision or changed circumstances showing a significant likelihood of removal. The regulation also requires immigration officials to notify the person of the reasons for revocation and promptly conduct an initial informal interview.

The court found that the respondents gave no reasons for revoking Garrison G.’s supervision, either in a notice to him or in their written submissions. The record contained nothing showing changed circumstances, a reasoned decision to revoke supervision, or that the required interview was promptly provided. The court therefore held that the January 11, 2026 re-detention violated the agency’s regulations.

The court separately held that the arrest violated the Fourth Amendment because the respondents forcibly entered Garrison G.’s home without consent and without a judicial warrant. The court did not reach Garrison G.’s alternative claims under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment’s due-process provision because the regulatory violation independently made his detention unlawful.

Disposition

The court ordered the respondents to release Garrison G. immediately, subject to the conditions in his preexisting Order of Supervision. The respondents were required to provide a status update confirming release by 4:00 p.m. Central Time on January 16, 2026. The court also prohibited re-arrest or re-detention related to immigration proceedings unless the respondents first complied with all regulations governing revocation of supervision.

The Amended Petition was GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Garrison G. may separately move within 30 days after final judgment for attorney’s fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act. His requests for preliminary injunctive relief were denied as moot, and the court declined to grant permanent injunctive relief without a more developed record. Other requested relief was denied.