Luis E. M. C. v. Bondi
Luis E. M. C. v. Pamela Bondi, United States Attorney General; Kristi Noem, Secretary, United States Department of Homeland Security; Todd M. Lyons, Acting Director, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement; David Easterwood, Acting Director of St. Paul Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- John Tunheim
- 0:26-cv-00333
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 8
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Luis E. M. C. v. Bondi, Judge Tunheim denied dismissal or transfer and granted habeas relief, ordering immediate return and release.
Luis E. M. C., the detained petitioner, was ordered returned to Minnesota and released from custody. The respondents were required to carry out that order and report on the release.
What happened
Luis E. M. C. v. Bondi concerns an Ecuadorian citizen who was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and held in immigration detention. He said he was not shown an arrest warrant and challenged his continued detention under the Constitution and federal laws. The government argued that the court lacked authority because he had been transferred to Texas before the petition was filed.
The court found that it still had authority to hear the case because the transfer happened shortly after the arrest, before counsel could determine where Luis E. M. C. was being held. On the merits, the court ruled that the mandatory-detention law the government relied on did not apply to him. Because the government had not produced a warrant supporting detention under another law, the court ordered his release rather than a bond hearing.
Judge Tunheim denied the government’s motion to dismiss or transfer and granted Luis E. M. C.’s habeas petition. The court ordered the government to return him to Minnesota within 72 hours and release him there, and required the parties to report on his release.
The detailed version
- Luis E. M. C. v. Bondi · No. 0:26-cv-00333
- John Tunheim
- Jan. 23, 2026
Background
Luis E. M. C. filed a petition challenging his immigration detention. The opinion states that he is a resident of St. Paul, Minnesota, a citizen of Ecuador, and had lived in the United States since 2011. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers arrested him on January 12, 2026. He alleged that officers did not show or provide him with an arrest warrant. He sought immediate release or, alternatively, a bond hearing, arguing that his detention violated the Fifth Amendment, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act.
The government moved to dismiss the petition or transfer it to the Western District of Texas. It argued that the court lacked authority to decide the petition because Luis E. M. C. had been transferred out of Minnesota before the petition was filed. The government also argued that his detention was lawful under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
Motion to Dismiss or Transfer
The court denied the government’s motion. Ordinarily, a person challenging physical custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 files the petition in the district where the person is confined and names the person’s custodian. The court explained that exceptions may apply when the person is held at an undisclosed location by an unknown custodian.
The court found that this exception applied. Luis E. M. C. was arrested in Minnesota, counsel could not determine his location through the Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainee locator or repeated calls, and the government had transferred him to a facility in El Paso, Texas, before the petition was filed. The court concluded that it had authority when the petition was filed and retained that authority despite the transfer.
Habeas Petition
The court reached the merits of the detention challenge. It ruled that the mandatory-detention provision in § 1225(b)(2) did not apply to Luis E. M. C. The court relied on his long presence in the United States before his arrest, while noting that the record contained few details about his arrival.
The court then considered the proper remedy. It concluded that a bond hearing under § 1226(a) was not appropriate because the government had incorrectly relied on § 1225(b)(2) and had not produced a warrant required for an arrest under § 1226(a). The court therefore determined that release from custody was the proper remedy.
Disposition
The court granted the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and denied the motion to dismiss or transfer. It ordered the respondents to return Luis E. M. C. to Minnesota within 72 hours and release him from custody there. The parties were also ordered to file a notice within 72 hours concerning the status of his release.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.