Flores v. Bondi
- John Gerrard
- 0:26-cv-01678
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Ruano Flores v. Bondi, Judge John M. Gerrard ordered the immediate release of a noncitizen detained by immigration enforcement because the government failed to produce a warrant showing the detention was lawful.
Noncitizens held in ICE detention in the District of Minnesota, particularly those detained without a clearly documented arrest warrant, who may be challenging their detention as unlawful for lack of a bond hearing.
What happened
In Ruano Flores v. Bondi, Ronald Avidai Ruano Flores, a noncitizen held by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), asked the court to order his release by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus — a legal request challenging the lawfulness of a person's detention. He argued he was being held unlawfully because he had been denied a bond hearing, a proceeding at which a judge could consider releasing him while his immigration case continues. The government argued his detention was mandatory and that he was not eligible for release.
The key factual dispute was whether Mr. Ruano Flores had been arrested pursuant to an administrative warrant. Under federal immigration law, the existence of such a warrant matters greatly: if an arrest was made under a warrant, the detainee is entitled to a bond hearing; if not, outright release may be the appropriate remedy. The government acknowledged that a warrant might exist but said it was unable to produce it. The court found that an unverified statement from an unnamed ICE employee — essentially hearsay — was not sufficient proof that the detention was lawful.
Judge John M. Gerrard granted the petition and ordered the government to immediately return Mr. Ruano Flores to Minnesota if he had been moved elsewhere, release him from custody with no new conditions, and return any personal property taken when he was detained. The court relied on its own prior ruling in a similar case, Velasco Hurtado v. Bondi, and gave the government until March 4, 2026, to file a report confirming it had complied with the order.
The detailed version
This case involves a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by Ronald Avidai Ruano Flores, a noncitizen in ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) custody, against Pamela Bondi, Attorney General, and other respondents. The petition was assigned case number 0:26-CV-1678 in the District of Minnesota.
Mr. Ruano Flores argued that his detention was unlawful because he had been denied a bond hearing as provided under 8 C.F.R. §§ 236.1(d)(1) and 1236.1(d)(1), which govern discretionary release from immigration detention. The government's response (filing 6) maintained that his detention was mandatory rather than discretionary and that he was ineligible for release.
The court noted that the case raised only legal questions — a point the government did not contest — and declined to hold an evidentiary hearing, as permitted by 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Judge Gerrard stated that the petition would be granted for reasons articulated in a prior opinion from the same court: Velasco Hurtado v. Bondi, No. 0:26-CV-546, 2026 WL 184884 (D. Minn. Jan. 24, 2026).
The court emphasized that under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), the existence of an administrative warrant of arrest is legally significant: if the petitioner was arrested pursuant to such a warrant, he would be entitled to a bond hearing rather than outright release. The government suggested a warrant might exist but said it could not produce it. The court found this inadequate — characterizing the government's only evidence as hearsay from an unnamed ICE employee reported through counsel — and declined to allow additional time for the government to supply the warrant. The court observed that the purpose of the government's required response (the 'return' in habeas practice) is precisely to set out the facts justifying detention, citing Gladden v. Gidley, 337 F.2d 575 (9th Cir. 1964) and Walker v. Johnston, 312 U.S. 275 (1941).
The court had previously directed the government to address whether a warrant existed and to provide a copy if so (filing 2 at 2). Because the government failed to do so, the court found outright release — not merely a bond hearing — to be the appropriate remedy.
The court ordered: (1) the petition granted; (2) the government to immediately return Mr. Ruano Flores to the District of Minnesota if he had been moved; (3) the government to immediately release him from custody with no new conditions and return any seized personal property; and (4) the government to file a compliance status report by March 4, 2026. Judgment was directed to be entered accordingly.
The opinion was signed by John M. Gerrard, Senior United States District Judge, on March 2, 2026.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.