Marisol P.Q. v. Bondi

Background

Marisol P.Q. filed a verified petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus, a court order addressing allegedly unlawful custody, and a motion for expedited discovery. The opinion states that Marisol is a citizen of Colombia who entered the United States on July 27, 2022, surrendered to immigration authorities, was released in early August 2022, later applied for asylum, and received a work permit. Her asylum application remained pending. She lived in Burnsville, Minnesota, worked at a local shampoo factory, had no criminal record, and was not subject to a deportation order.

On February 4, 2026, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers arrested Marisol during a routine immigration appointment and told her she could be transferred to Texas as early as the next day. She filed her petition that day. Judge Michael J. Davis then issued an order to show cause, concluded that jurisdiction attached when Marisol was apprehended in Minnesota, and ordered that she not be removed from the District of Minnesota—or returned there if she had already been removed.

Marisol’s attorney went to the Whipple Federal Building in Fort Snelling and presented Judge Davis’s order to immigration officers. The officers said Marisol had already been transferred to El Paso, Texas and had never been housed at that building. Marisol then sought records about her transportation, custody and location, the people involved in her transfer, her property, communications, and policies concerning rapid transfers.

The government later told the court that Marisol had been transferred to an unspecified location in Minnesota. It later stated that she had been released at 1:10 a.m. on February 8. Her attorney questioned whether the person released was actually Marisol. The court ordered supporting release documents, but the government did not provide them by the deadline described in the opinion.

Habeas Petition

Marisol argued that her detention was governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which, as described in the opinion, requires a warrant and provides for a bond hearing. The respondents argued that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) governed instead and required detention without a warrant.

The court agreed with Judge Davis’s earlier reasoning that people who have lived in the United States for months, years, or decades and are not seeking admission are not covered by § 1225(b)(2). It therefore concluded that Marisol’s detention was subject to § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2).

The court also gave an independent reason for recommending relief: the respondents did not provide evidence supporting any lawful basis for detaining Marisol. Their response consisted of a one-paragraph statement referring to another pending case and did not include affidavits, declarations, exhibits, or facts specific to Marisol. The respondents also did not provide a warrant or suggest that one existed. Based on the absence of a required warrant and supporting evidence, the court recommended that Marisol be released.

The court rejected the anticipated argument that the case was moot. Although the respondents said Marisol had been released, they did not provide the documents the court ordered to confirm that fact. Until the respondents supported their release claim, the court found that the case was not moot.

Expedited Discovery

The court’s order states that habeas petitioners do not ordinarily receive discovery automatically. Here, however, Marisol was not seeking discovery to develop the underlying detention claim. She sought information about whether the respondents had improperly moved her to affect the court’s jurisdiction, failed to comply with Judge Davis’s order, or interfered with her access to counsel.

The court held that federal courts have inherent authority—power that comes from the nature of the courts themselves—to manage their cases and address conduct that abuses the judicial process. The court identified concerns about possible forum shopping by the government, possible violation of Judge Davis’s injunction, and possible interference with Marisol’s access to her attorney. It did not decide whether the transfer was improper, stating that further discovery was needed to determine whether the transfer was intentional misconduct or had reasonable explanations.

The court therefore granted the motion for expedited discovery in part. It ordered the respondents to produce, by February 17, 2026, records concerning Marisol’s movement from Minnesota to El Paso and any interim locations; property taken from her; the identities and roles of personnel involved in her removal and return; records of her custody and location; documents proving the date, time, and place of her release if she was released; and internal policies and communications concerning rapid transfers, transfers before judicial review, moving detainees outside Minnesota, and responses to habeas filings or court orders.

Recommended and Ordered Relief

The report and recommendation recommended that Marisol’s habeas petition be granted in part and denied in part. It recommended an order requiring the respondents to release her as soon as practicable, inside Minnesota, at a safe time and place communicated in advance to counsel, with her personal effects. It recommended that the remainder of the petition be denied without prejudice, meaning the court did not bar a later request on those remaining matters. It also stated that any motion for attorney fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act should be filed within 21 days after entry of judgment if the petition is granted.

Separately, the order granted Marisol’s expedited-discovery motion in part and imposed the February 17 production deadline. The opinion was signed by Dulce J. Foster as a United States magistrate judge. The report and recommendation was not directly appealable, and the respondents were given until February 12 to object; the order likewise stated that it was not appealable until the matter concluded.