Walter Z. v. Bondi
Walter Z. v. Pamela Bondi, Attorney General; Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Todd M. Lyons, Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and David Easterwood, Acting Director, St. Paul Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Michael Davis
- 0:26-cv-00373
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 6
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Walter Z. v. Bondi, Magistrate Judge Bullard recommended granting habeas relief and ordering Walter Z.’s immediate release from immigration detention.
Walter Z., who challenged his immigration detention, and the government respondents responsible for that detention and for complying with any final release order.
What happened
Walter Z. v. Bondi concerns Walter Z.’s detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Walter Z. alleged that ICE arrested him without a warrant and that he was being held unlawfully. He is not subject to a final removal order.
The government argued that the case involved issues similar to earlier detention cases that were on appeal. But it did not provide an arrest warrant or explain why the lack of a warrant did not require Walter Z.’s release, despite the court’s order requiring that information.
Magistrate Judge Elsa M. Bullard recommended granting the petition, ordering Walter Z.’s immediate release, and requiring the government to confirm the release within 24 hours after an order granting that relief. The recommendation was not itself a final district court order.
The detailed version
- Walter Z. v. Bondi · No. 0:26-cv-00373
- Michael Davis
- Jan. 27, 2026
Background
Walter Z. filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his immigration detention and seeking immediate release. The opinion states that he is a citizen of Ecuador who lives in Minneapolis, entered the United States without inspection in 2010, and is not subject to a final order of removal. ICE arrested him on January 15, 2026. Walter Z. alleged that the arrest occurred without a warrant, notice, or an opportunity to be heard.
Walter Z.’s counsel believed he was being held at the Whipple Federal Building in St. Paul, although counsel had not been able to locate him through the online ICE locator. The court ordered the respondents to show why the petition should not be granted and to provide evidence establishing the lawfulness and duration of Walter Z.’s detention. The court also directed them to address whether the lack of an arrest warrant required his immediate release.
Analysis
The respondents filed a one-page response stating that the petition raised legal and factual issues similar to those in earlier habeas cases, including a case then on appeal. The report explains that, in materially similar cases, the court had concluded that a noncitizen who had lived in the United States for years but had never been lawfully admitted was not an “alien seeking admission” subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). Instead, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) applied, and that statute required a bond hearing before detention.
The report states that the respondents offered no reason to reach a different result here and did not provide an arrest warrant or address the warrant issue as ordered. Relying on the court’s prior rulings and the respondents’ concessions, the report concluded that Walter Z.’s petition should be granted. It also concluded that immediate release should be recommended because an arrest warrant is a prerequisite to detention under § 1226(a), as stated in the authorities discussed in the report.
Recommended Disposition
Judge Elsa M. Bullard recommended that Walter Z.’s verified petition be granted; that the respondents be ordered to immediately release Walter Z.; and that the respondents be ordered to file a notice confirming his release within 24 hours of the entry of an order granting that relief.
The document is a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, not a final district court order or judgment. The notice states that it is not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit. It gives the parties three days to file objections and two days to respond to objections.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.