Maria C.Y. v. Lyons
- Michael Davis
- 0:26-cv-00117
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Maria C.Y. v. Lyons, Magistrate Judge Schultz recommends granting habeas relief and ordering a bond hearing because the wrong detention statute was used.
Maria C.Y. and the Government in connection with her immigration detention, administrative warrant, and potential bond hearing.
What happened
Maria C.Y. v. Todd Lyons, et al. concerns Maria C.Y., an Ecuadorian citizen detained in immigration custody while her asylum application remains pending. She entered the United States without inspection in April 2021 and was placed in removal proceedings.
Maria C.Y. argued that the Government wrongly detained her under a mandatory-detention law instead of a law allowing bond hearings. She asked for release or a bond hearing under the discretionary-detention law.
Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz recommends granting the petition and requiring the Government to issue an administrative warrant and provide a bond hearing within seven days. The recommendation also calls for her release if the Government does not do so and would bar denying her a bond hearing on the ground that the mandatory-detention law applies. This is a report and recommendation, not a final District Court order.
The detailed version
- Maria C.Y. v. Lyons · No. 0:26-cv-00117
- Michael Davis
- Jan. 21, 2026
Background
Maria C.Y. is an Ecuadorian citizen who has lived in the United States since April 2021. She entered the United States without inspection, was placed in removal proceedings, and later applied for asylum. Her asylum application remains pending. She was detained on January 7, 2026, and remained in immigration detention when the report and recommendation was issued.
Maria C.Y. filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a procedure used to challenge unlawful detention. She argued that the Government was detaining her under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), a mandatory-detention provision, when 8 U.S.C. § 1226 should govern. Section 1226 provides a discretionary detention framework under which a detained person may receive a bond hearing. Maria C.Y. asserted that the alleged misclassification violated the Immigration and Nationality Act and her due-process rights under the Fifth Amendment.
She sought immediate release or a bond hearing under § 1226(a) within seven days. The Government argued that § 1225(b)(2), rather than § 1226, governed her detention.
Analysis
The court treated the dispute as a statutory-interpretation issue. It noted that the court and other judges in the District of Minnesota had repeatedly rejected the Government’s position in similar habeas cases. The Government acknowledged that the petition raised issues similar to those in earlier petitions. Rather than repeat the earlier analysis, the court incorporated that analysis by reference.
The court concluded that the discretionary detention framework in § 1226(a), not the mandatory-detention framework in § 1225, applies to Maria C.Y. Resolving that issue in her favor made it unnecessary to address her alternative grounds.
Recommended disposition
Judge David T. Schultz recommends that Maria C.Y.’s habeas petition be granted. The recommendation would require the Government to issue an administrative warrant and provide her with a bond hearing under § 1226 within seven days. It would also require the Government to release her if it failed to do so and enjoin the Government from denying her a bond hearing on the basis that § 1225(b)(2) applies.
The document is a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, not an order or judgment of the District Court. It states that it is not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit and provides a procedure for filing objections.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.