Rodrigo M. v. Bondi
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:26-cv-01069
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Rodrigo M. v. Bondi, Judge Menendez held detention law required a bond hearing, granting the habeas petition in part and denying it in part.
Rodrigo M. receives a bond hearing and cannot be denied release or other relief on the ground that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) requires his mandatory detention. The respondents may continue detaining him under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) pending the bond hearing.
What happened
Rodrigo M. v. Bondi involved Rodrigo M., a citizen of El Salvador who had lived in the United States since October 2022 and was arrested by federal immigration authorities on February 4, 2026. He asked for a bond hearing or immediate release after his arrest, and he did not have a final removal order.
The court ruled that the law requiring mandatory detention for people seeking admission did not apply to Rodrigo M. because he was already in the United States. But the court also ruled that his arrest warrant gave the government authority to detain him under a different law, which requires a bond hearing at the beginning of detention. The court therefore denied immediate release but ordered a bond hearing.
Judge Katherine Menendez granted Rodrigo M.’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus in part and denied it in part. She declared that he was not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), barred the respondents from denying release or other relief on that basis, and ordered a bond hearing by February 13, 2026. The remainder of the petition was denied without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Rodrigo M. v. Bondi · No. 0:26-cv-01069
- Katherine Menendez
- Feb. 8, 2026
Background
Rodrigo M. filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, asking the court to review the legality of his immigration detention. The opinion states that he is a citizen of El Salvador, a resident of Baldwin, Minnesota, and has lived in the United States since October 2022. He does not have a final order of removal.
Federal immigration authorities arrested Rodrigo M. on February 4, 2026, at a restaurant. At the time the petition was filed, his location was unknown. He sought either a bond hearing or immediate release.
The respondents argued that Rodrigo M. was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). They also argued that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) authorized his detention because he had been arrested under a warrant. They attached a February 4, 2026 arrest warrant.
Mandatory detention under Section 1225(b)(2)
The court declined to change its prior analysis of whether Section 1225(b)(2) applies to people already in the United States. It held that the provision, which requires detention for certain people seeking admission, does not apply to Rodrigo M. or similarly situated people who are already in the United States.
The court therefore declared that Rodrigo M. was not subject to mandatory detention under Section 1225(b)(2) and enjoined the respondents from denying release or other relief on the ground that he was subject to that mandatory detention.
Detention and bond hearing under Section 1226(a)
The court accepted the respondents’ argument that the arrest warrant gave them authority to detain Rodrigo M. under Section 1226(a). That provision allows detention under an Attorney General’s warrant while the government decides whether a person is to be removed.
The court also explained that federal regulations provide for a bond hearing at the beginning of detention under Section 1226(a). As a result, Rodrigo M. was not entitled to immediate release, but he was entitled to a bond hearing.
Disposition
The court ordered the respondents to provide Rodrigo M. with a bond hearing under Section 1226(a) by February 13, 2026. It further ordered them to file an update by noon on February 14, 2026, showing that the hearing had occurred.
The petition for a writ of habeas corpus was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The remainder of the petition was DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.