Mariner v. Bondi
- Gerrard
- 0:26-cv-01007
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Perez Marinero v. Bondi, Judge Gerrard granted the petition and ordered immediate release because the government could not show a warrant supporting detention.
Adrian Remberto Perez Marinero, who was ordered released; the federal government and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which were ordered to return him to Minnesota if necessary, release him without new conditions, return his seized personal property, and report compliance.
What happened
Adrian Remberto Perez Marinero v. Pamela Bondi, Attorney General, et al. concerns a noncitizen detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. A next friend filed a petition challenging the detention and seeking a bond hearing.
The government argued that the detention was mandatory and that Perez Marinero could not be released. The court said the case presented only legal issues, so it did not hold a hearing. The court explained that a warrant would require a bond hearing, but detention without a warrant would require release.
The government could not produce a warrant or confirm that Perez Marinero had been arrested under one. Judge John M. Gerrard granted the petition, ordered the government to return Perez Marinero to Minnesota if necessary, release him there without new conditions, return his seized personal property, and file a compliance report by February 11, 2026.
The detailed version
- Mariner v. Bondi · No. 0:26-cv-01007
- Gerrard
- Feb. 9, 2026
Background
Adrian Remberto Perez Marinero is a noncitizen detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. A next friend filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Habeas corpus is a court procedure used to challenge unlawful custody. The petition argued that Perez Marinero was unlawfully detained because he had been denied a bond hearing under 8 C.F.R. §§ 236.1(d)(1) and 1236.1(d)(1).
The court found that the petition's uncontested allegations adequately established the next friend's legal authority to bring the action. Because the briefing presented only legal issues, and the government did not dispute that point, the court declined to hold a hearing.
Warrant and detention issue
The government argued that Perez Marinero's detention was mandatory rather than discretionary and that he was not eligible for release. The court explained that the existence of an administrative warrant was important because a warrant would trigger 28 U.S.C. § 1226(a). If Perez Marinero had been arrested under a warrant, he would be entitled to a bond hearing. If he had not been arrested under a warrant, the court concluded that he was entitled to release.
The government suggested that a warrant might exist but could not produce it. The court said the government had provided only hearsay from an unnamed Immigration and Customs Enforcement employee who believed a warrant existed but said it was not uploaded into the agency's system. The court also noted that the government had not actually stated that Perez Marinero was arrested under a warrant. It concluded that issuing an administrative warrant after an arrest would not be enough to trigger § 1226(a).
Ruling
The court granted the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. It ordered the government, if necessary, to immediately return Perez Marinero to the District of Minnesota. Once he was in Minnesota, the government had to immediately release him from custody without new conditions and return any personal property seized when he was detained. The government also had to file a status report certifying compliance by February 11, 2026.
Judge John M. Gerrard entered judgment accordingly.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.