Fanny U. v. Bondi
- Michael Davis
- 0:26-cv-00262
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Fanny U. v. Bondi, Judge Docherty recommended a bond hearing for Fanny U. and denied her temporary-restraining-order motion as moot.
The recommendation directly affects Fanny U.’s immigration detention and bond-hearing rights, and it directs Respondents Pamela Bondi, Kristi Noem, Todd M. Lyons, and David Easterwood to provide the hearing if the district judge adopts the recommendation.
What happened
In Fanny U. v. Pamela Bondi, Kristi Noem, Todd M. Lyons, and David Easterwood, Fanny U. asked for a hearing to decide whether she could be released on bond while detained by immigration authorities. She argued that the law gave her that right.
The respondents argued that Fanny U. was subject to mandatory detention and therefore did not qualify for a bond hearing. The court concluded that she was already living in the United States, was detained under the law governing people already present in the country, and was not an applicant seeking admission.
Judge John F. Docherty recommended granting the petition insofar as respondents must provide a bond hearing within seven days after a district judge adopts the recommendation. He also recommended denying Fanny U.’s temporary-restraining-order motion as moot and recommended immediate release if the hearing is not provided.
The detailed version
- Fanny U. v. Bondi · No. 0:26-cv-00262
- Michael Davis
- Jan. 23, 2026
Background
Fanny U. filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a procedure that allows a person to challenge unlawful detention. She stated that she is a citizen of Ecuador, had lived continuously in the United States since August 22, 2023, and had asserted an asylum claim for herself and her children. Respondents detained her on January 13, 2026, and she was held in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody in Minnesota when she filed the petition. The opinion states that she has no criminal history.
Fanny U. claimed that respondents were denying her access to a bond hearing required under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Respondents instead relied on 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), which they argued required her detention without a bond hearing. They also cited a prior District of Minnesota decision, but the court found that respondents had not shown a material distinction between this case and that earlier decision.
Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that § 1226(a) governs detention of a noncitizen already present in the United States, while § 1225(b)(2) governs detention of a noncitizen seeking admission. Under the court’s analysis, detention under § 1226(a) is discretionary and the person is entitled to a bond hearing; detention under § 1225(b)(2) is mandatory and does not provide that hearing.
The court found that Fanny U. was present in the United States, was detained under § 1226, and was not an applicant for admission. It therefore concluded that she was entitled to a bond hearing.
Recommended Disposition
Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty recommended that Fanny U.’s petition be granted insofar as respondents must hold a bond hearing before an immigration judge in Minnesota within seven days after a district judge adopts the Report and Recommendation. He also recommended that Fanny U.’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order be denied as moot. The recommendation further states that, if respondents do not provide the required bond hearing, Fanny U. should be immediately released from detention.
The document is a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, not a final district-court order or judgment. It states that objections were due by January 26, 2026, and responses to objections were due by January 28, 2026. The opinion text provided does not state whether the district judge later adopted the recommendation.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.