Pedro L. v. Lyons
Pedro L. v. Todd Lyons, in his capacity as Acting Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Pamela Bondi, U.S. Attorney General; Executive Office for Immigration Review; and David Easterwood, Field Office Director of St. Paul Field Office for U.S. Department of Homeland Security, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Enforcement and Removal Operations.
- Michael Davis
- 0:26-cv-00707
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 11
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Pedro L. v. Lyons, Judge Cowan Wright recommends release because ICE unlawfully detained Pedro L. under the wrong immigration statute without an arrest warrant.
Pedro L., who was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, would be released if the district court adopts the recommendation. The recommendation would also require the respondents to coordinate his release, return his personal documents and belongings, impose no listed release conditions, and report compliance to the court.
What happened
Pedro L. v. Lyons concerns Pedro L.’s challenge to his immigration detention. He says he is a citizen of Guatemala who has lived in the United States for more than 10 years and was taken into Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody on January 11, 2026. He asked for release or, alternatively, a hearing to decide whether he could be released on bond.
The government argued that Pedro L. had to be held under a law requiring detention of certain people seeking admission to the United States. Pedro L. argued that the law allowing discretionary detention applied because he had lived in the country for many years and was not detained while entering. He also argued that the government had not shown that an arrest warrant preceded his detention.
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright recommends granting the petition to the extent that Pedro L.’s detention be declared unlawful and that he be immediately released without release conditions. The recommendation is not a final district-court order, and the parties could object by the stated deadline.
The detailed version
- Pedro L. v. Lyons · No. 0:26-cv-00707
- Michael Davis
- Feb. 1, 2026
Background
Pedro L. filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his immigration detention. The opinion states that he is a citizen of Guatemala, has resided in the United States since December 2015, and has a minor child who is a United States citizen living in Minnesota with Pedro L.’s wife. It also states that he entered the United States without inspection and that a Hennepin County official certified that he was the victim of a felonious assault in Minneapolis in 2023.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement took Pedro L. into custody on or about January 11, 2026, in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. The petition initially identified his detention location as a facility in El Paso, Texas. In his reply, Pedro L. said an online detainee locator identified a facility in Albert Lea, Minnesota. The respondents did not provide an updated location, additional evidence about the detention, or evidence that an arrest warrant preceded it.
Legal dispute
The dispute concerned which immigration-detention statute applied. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), detention is mandatory for a person seeking admission to the United States. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), detention is discretionary and may be imposed after an immigration judge considers bond. The respondents argued that Pedro L. was treated as an applicant for admission because he was present in the United States after entering without inspection, and therefore had to be detained under § 1225(b)(2).
Pedro L. argued that § 1226(a) applied because he had lived in the United States for more than 10 years and was not detained while seeking entry. He also argued that he should be released because the respondents had not shown that an arrest warrant preceded his detention.
Analysis
The court adopted the reasoning of decisions that rejected the government’s interpretation of § 1225(b)(2). It concluded that the provision applies only to people who are presently seeking admission at the time of detention. Because Pedro L. had lived in the United States for more than 10 years, the court concluded that he was subject to discretionary detention under § 1226(a), not mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2).
The court further concluded that an arrest warrant is a prerequisite for detention under § 1226(a). The respondents did not attempt to show that a warrant existed, even after Judge Michael J. Davis ordered them to provide information about the lawfulness of the detention and whether a warrant preceded the arrest. Based on the absence of that showing, the court determined that immediate release—not merely a bond hearing—was the appropriate remedy.
Recommendation and procedural status
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright recommends that the petition be granted insofar as Pedro L.’s current detention is declared unlawful; the respondents are ordered to release him immediately in Minnesota; and they coordinate his release with his counsel. The recommendation also calls for release of his personal documents and belongings, without conditions such as ankle monitors or tracking devices, and for a government status report within 72 hours after an order adopting the recommendation.
This document is a Report and Recommendation, not a final district-court order or judgment. It states that objections were due February 3, 2026, with responses due February 5, 2026, and that the recommendation was not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.