Evelyn A.B. v. Noem
Evelyn A.B. v. Kristi Noem, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Todd Lyons, Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; David Easterwood, Acting Director of St. Paul Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and Pamela Bondi, Attorney General of the United States
- Michael Davis
- 0:26-cv-00950
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Evelyn A.B. v. Noem, Judge Foster recommended partly granting habeas relief, releasing Evelyn, and denying the remainder without prejudice.
Evelyn A.B., who was detained by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, would be released if the recommendation is adopted. The federal officials named as respondents would be subject to the recommended release order.
What happened
In Evelyn A.B. v. Noem, Evelyn A.B. asked the court to order immigration officials to hold a bond hearing and release her. She said the law governing people arrested inside the United States applied to her detention and required a bond hearing.
The magistrate judge agreed that the officials could not rely on the other detention provision discussed in the opinion. The judge also concluded that a warrant was required and that the officials had neither produced one nor said that one existed. Because they did not respond to the petition, the court treated it as unopposed.
Judge Foster recommended granting the petition in part and denying it in part, ordering Evelyn’s release as soon as practicable, and denying the rest of the petition without prejudice. The recommendation is not yet a final order or judgment; the respondents could object by February 8, 2026, and Evelyn could respond by February 10, 2026.
The detailed version
- Evelyn A.B. v. Noem · No. 0:26-cv-00950
- Michael Davis
- Feb. 5, 2026
Background
Evelyn A.B. filed a petition asking the court to order her release and to require a bond hearing. The opinion states that she is a citizen of Ecuador, entered the United States without inspection on December 12, 2024, and had been detained by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement at Fort Snelling, Minnesota, since February 2, 2026.
The respondents are federal officials responsible for enforcing immigration laws and controlling Evelyn’s detention. Judge Michael J. Davis had ordered them to answer the petition by February 4, 2026. They did not respond and did not request more time, so the court deemed the petition unopposed.
Court’s analysis
Evelyn argued that her detention was governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which provides for a bond hearing for people arrested inside the United States. The respondents have argued in similar cases that detention instead falls under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
The report and recommendation follows Judge Davis’s earlier conclusion that § 1225(b)(2) does not apply to people who are not seeking admission. Judge Foster also concluded that a warrant is a necessary condition for detention under § 1226(a). The respondents did not produce a warrant or indicate that one had been obtained before Evelyn was detained. The court therefore concluded that the respondents had not established a legal basis for continuing to detain her.
Recommended disposition
The court recommended that Evelyn’s petition be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. It recommended ordering the respondents to release her from custody as soon as practicable. It also recommended denying the remainder of the petition WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The recommendation states that, if the petition is granted, any motion for attorney fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act must be filed within 21 days after judgment is entered, with a supporting memorandum explaining why fees and costs should be awarded.
This document is a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, not a final order or judgment of the District Court. The respondents were given until February 8, 2026, to file objections, and Evelyn was given until February 10, 2026, to respond. The opinion states that the report and recommendation is not directly appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.