Ruben V. v. Noem

Background

Ruben V. filed a petition asking the court to review the legality of his immigration detention. The opinion identifies him as a citizen of Ecuador who had lived in the United States since about June 2019. Immigration and Customs Enforcement first detained him in October 2019, but an immigration judge later dismissed his removal proceedings. The opinion states that Ruben had not been arrested or otherwise violated the terms of his earlier release. Immigration officers arrested him again on January 21, 2026, and he was being held at Fort Snelling near St. Paul, Minnesota.

Ruben argued that his detention violated the Immigration and Nationality Act, his Fifth Amendment right to due process, and the Administrative Procedure Act. He requested a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 and release from federal custody. Respondents opposed the petition.

Procedural History

United States District Judge Michael J. Davis issued an order requiring Respondents to explain the legal basis and duration of Ruben’s confinement. The order also required affidavits and exhibits supporting the lawfulness of the detention, a legal and factual explanation of Respondents’ position, a recommendation about whether an evidentiary hearing was needed, and an explanation of whether the absence of an arrest warrant required Ruben’s immediate release.

Respondents filed a one-page response. They stated that Ruben’s petition raised issues similar to those in other immigration detention cases and incorporated arguments being considered in an appellate case. They did not attach affidavits, exhibits, or a warrant. Ruben replied that Respondents had failed to justify his arrest and requested immediate release.

Legal Analysis

The report addressed two federal detention statutes. Respondents argued that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), which they characterized as requiring detention in these circumstances, applied to noncitizens who were already in the United States but had entered without inspection. Ruben argued that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which allows discretionary detention and requires a bond hearing, applied instead.

The report agreed with Ruben’s interpretation. It concluded that § 1226(a), rather than § 1225(b), governs detention of noncitizens already present or residing in the United States. The report relied on the majority of decisions from the District of Minnesota and decisions from other courts that had rejected Respondents’ interpretation. It also noted that Respondents did not assert that Ruben had a criminal history or argue that another exception requiring detention under § 1226(c) applied.

The report then addressed the warrant requirement. Section 1226(a) provides for arrest and detention on a warrant issued by the Attorney General. The report concluded that issuing a warrant is a necessary condition for discretionary detention under that statute. Because Respondents did not demonstrate that a warrant requirement had been satisfied or provide another valid statutory basis for Ruben’s detention, the report concluded that release was an appropriate remedy.

Recommendation and Notice

Judge Elkins recommended that Ruben’s petition be granted and that Ruben V. be immediately released from detention into Minnesota. The document is a 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 that the parties could file specific written objections within two days of filing, with responses due within two days after service of objections.