Ruben V. v. Noem

Background

Ruben V. filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his immigration detention. The opinion states that he is a native and citizen of Mexico who entered the United States without inspection in or around 2001, has lived in the same house for nineteen years, lives with his wife and United States-citizen children, and has no criminal history. Respondents took him into physical custody on December 28, 2025, while he was going to work. The opinion also states that physical force was used during the arrest.

Ruben V. primarily sought a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). He also requested release and attorney fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The respondents opposed the petition and incorporated arguments from an appeal in a prior related proceeding, maintaining that people in Ruben V.’s position were subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b).

Legal question

The central question was whether Ruben V. was an “applicant for admission” subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b), or a noncitizen already residing in the United States whose detention was governed by § 1226.

Court’s analysis

The court rejected the respondents’ interpretation of § 1225(b). It explained that the statute applies when a person is currently an applicant for admission and is currently seeking admission. Because Ruben V. had been residing in the United States, the court found that he was not currently seeking admission.

The court also reasoned that applying § 1225(b) to all noncitizens who entered without inspection and already live in the United States would make other immigration laws unnecessary. In particular, the court stated that the interpretation would undermine amendments to § 1226 that created additional mandatory-detention categories for certain people charged with or convicted of specified crimes.

The court concluded that Ruben V.’s detention was governed by § 1226(a), which provides a discretionary detention process for people already present in the United States and eligible for removal. The court therefore held that he was entitled to a bond hearing. The opinion separately states that Ruben V. was also a member of a class certified in a prior related proceeding whose members were declared entitled to bond hearings.

Disposition

The court ordered that the petition was GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Respondents were required to provide Ruben V. with a bond hearing under § 1226(a) by 5:00 p.m. Central Time on January 22, 2026. If they did not provide the hearing, they were required to release him immediately. Respondents had to give the court a status update by 11:00 a.m. Central Time on January 23, 2026.

The order also prohibited respondents, and anyone acting on their behalf, from removing or transferring Ruben V. from the District of Minnesota. To the extent he sought additional relief, the petition was denied. The court did not decide his request for attorney fees and costs; it stated that he could seek that relief in a separate motion within thirty days after final judgment.