Jose M.A.P. v. Noem

Background

Jose M.A.P. filed a verified petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a court procedure for challenging unlawful detention. The opinion states that he is a citizen of Mexico, has been present in the United States since 2007, and has no criminal history apart from minor traffic violations. He alleged that Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials arrested him on January 25, 2026, while he was driving his parents to church in Mounds View, Minnesota. He also alleged that officials transferred him to a detention facility in Texas almost immediately and that his counsel initially could not locate him through the agency’s online detainee locator system. The opinion states that he was later returned to Minnesota.

Jurisdiction

The respondents argued that the court lacked jurisdiction because Jose M.A.P. was not physically detained in Minnesota when he filed the petition. The court explained that the usual rule for a detention challenge under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is to file in the district where the person is confined and name the person’s custodian. The court found that the usual rule did not require dismissal or transfer because Jose M.A.P. had been returned to Minnesota. It further held that exceptions would have applied even if he had remained in Texas because the government-controlled transfer occurred within hours of detention and before communication with counsel was possible, creating a risk of defeating timely judicial review. The court therefore found that it had jurisdiction.

Merits

The respondents relied on 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) to justify Jose M.A.P.’s detention. The court rejected that argument, concluding that § 1225(b)(2) does not authorize the warrantless, notice-less arrest of a person already present in the United States under the circumstances presented. The court concluded that Jose M.A.P.’s detention was not authorized by that statute.

Remedy and Order

The court stated that it had previously treated a hearing to determine bond under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) as the appropriate remedy in similar cases. It was persuaded, however, that release was appropriate where the respondents incorrectly claimed that the person was detained under § 1225(b)(2) and had not produced a warrant required for an arrest under § 1226(a).

The court granted the petition. It ordered that Jose M.A.P. was not subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2). If he was detained outside Minnesota, the respondents had to transport him to Minnesota and release him there within 48 hours after the order was filed. If he remained detained in Minnesota, they had to release him as soon as practicable and no later than 48 hours after filing. The respondents also had to coordinate with his counsel to avoid leaving him outside in dangerous cold, release him with his personal effects, and not impose conditions such as location-tracking devices. The parties had to provide a status update by 5:00 p.m. on February 4, 2026, and address whether further proceedings were needed. Judge John R. Tunheim signed the order.