Adriano L.V. v. Noem
Adriano L.V. v. Kristi Noem, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; Todd Lyons, in his official capacity as Acting Director of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and David Easterwood, in his official capacity as Acting Director, St. Paul Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Michael Davis
- 0:26-cv-00269
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 7
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Adriano L.V. v. Noem, Magistrate Judge Foster recommended releasing Adriano because officials did not show the warrant required for his detention.
Adriano L.V., who was detained by immigration officials, would be released and returned to the District of Minnesota if the recommendation is adopted. The respondent federal officials would be required to carry out those actions.
What happened
Adriano L.V. v. Kristi Noem concerns Adriano, an Ecuadorian citizen who entered the United States without inspection in 2021 and was detained by immigration officials in January 2026. He asked the court either to release him or to order a hearing to decide whether he should receive bond.
The officials argued that a law requiring detention of certain people seeking admission applied to Adriano. The court instead concluded that a different law applied because Adriano had lived in the United States for several years and was not detained while trying to enter the country. That law requires a government warrant before detention and generally allows a bond hearing unless a separate mandatory-detention provision applies.
Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster recommended granting the petition, ordering Adriano’s immediate release, and requiring officials to return him to Minnesota upon release. The recommendation is not yet a final court order, and the officials could object by January 20, 2026.
The detailed version
- Adriano L.V. v. Noem · No. 0:26-cv-00269
- Michael Davis
- Jan. 18, 2026
Background
Adriano L.V. petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, asking the court to review the legality of his immigration detention. The opinion states that Adriano is a citizen of Ecuador, entered the United States without inspection on October 1, 2021, and was detained by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement at Fort Snelling, Minnesota, beginning January 13, 2026. The petition sought his release or, alternatively, a bond hearing.
The respondents were federal officials responsible for enforcing immigration laws and controlling Adriano’s detention. The opinion states that the record contained nothing suggesting Adriano had a criminal history.
Legal issue and parties’ positions
The dispute concerned whether 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) or 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) governed Adriano’s detention. Section 1226(a) permits detention while the government decides whether a person will be removed, but requires a warrant and generally permits release or detention on bond or conditional parole unless mandatory detention under § 1226(c) applies. Section 1225(b)(2), by contrast, was the provision the respondents argued required Adriano’s detention as an applicant for admission because he entered without inspection.
Adriano argued that § 1226(a) applied and that his detention violated that statute and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The respondents argued that § 1225(b)(2) governed and that, at most, § 1226(a) would entitle Adriano to a bond hearing rather than immediate release.
Court’s analysis
The court relied on the presiding district judge’s earlier decision in a related case and concluded that there was no basis to recommend a different result. It also found persuasive the majority view among judges in the District of Minnesota that § 1226(a), rather than § 1225(b)(2), governs detention in similar cases involving people who have been in the United States for some time and were not detained while attempting to enter.
The court rejected the respondents’ argument that this interpretation unfairly gives greater rights to people who entered without inspection than to people stopped during inspection. The opinion relied on statements issued after enactment of the applicable immigration legislation and explained that the statutory distinction concerns recent arrivals and people who arrived earlier and established lives in the United States.
Because § 1226(a) applied, the court stated that a warrant was a necessary condition for Adriano’s detention. The respondents had not produced a warrant or suggested that one existed, even though the petition sought immediate release and the court had directed them to provide materials establishing the lawfulness and duration of the detention. The court therefore concluded that immediate release, rather than only a bond hearing, was the appropriate recommended remedy.
Recommendation and procedural status
The Report and Recommendation recommended that Adriano’s petition be granted, that the respondents release him from custody as soon as practicable, and that they return him to the District of Minnesota upon his release. The recommendation addressed a January 14, 2026 injunction barring removal of Adriano from the district until a final decision, and noted the respondents’ representation that they had transferred him to an ICE facility in Texas on January 14, before the injunction was filed, for bed-space reasons.
The document expressly states that it is not an order or judgment of the District Court and is not directly appealable to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The respondents were required to object by January 20, 2026, and Adriano could respond by January 21, 2026.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.