Flores v. Bondi
- Gerrard
- 0:26-cv-01678
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate and have been consolidated across spelling variants.
In Ruano Flores v. Bondi, Judge Gerrard granted a detained immigrant's petition for release because the government could not produce the arrest warrant it claimed existed.
Noncitizens detained by ICE in Minnesota who are challenging the legal basis of their detention, particularly those whose arrest warrants cannot be produced by the government. This ruling also affects government officials required to justify immigration detention with documented legal authority.
What happened
In Ruano Flores v. Bondi, a noncitizen held by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) filed a federal court petition challenging his detention as unlawful. He argued he was entitled to a bond hearing under federal immigration regulations. The government responded that his detention was mandatory and he was not eligible for release, claiming an administrative arrest warrant existed but being unable to actually produce it.
The court found that the existence of a warrant was legally important because federal law (28 U.S.C. § 1226(a)) only triggers certain detention powers when a person is arrested pursuant to a warrant. The government was specifically directed in advance to address whether such a warrant existed and to provide a copy. When it failed to do so — providing only secondhand information from an unnamed ICE official — the court concluded it had no legal basis to credit the government's claim.
Judge John M. Gerrard of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota granted the petition. The court ordered the government to immediately return the petitioner to Minnesota if he had been moved elsewhere, release him from custody with no new conditions, and return any personal property taken from him when he was detained. The government was also ordered to file a status report confirming compliance by March 4, 2026.
The detailed version
- Flores v. Bondi · No. 0:26-cv-01678
- Gerrard
- Mar. 2, 2026
Background
Ronald Avidai Ruano Flores, a noncitizen detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus — a legal action challenging the lawfulness of one's imprisonment or detention — under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. Ruano Flores contended that his detention was unlawful because he had been denied a bond hearing as provided under federal immigration regulations at 8 C.F.R. §§ 236.1(d)(1) and 1236.1(d)(1).
The government (the respondents, including Attorney General Pamela Bondi) opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner's detention was mandatory rather than discretionary and that he was not eligible for release. The government also suggested that an administrative arrest warrant existed for the petitioner's arrest but stated it was unable to produce that warrant.
Legal Framework
The central legal issue was whether the petitioner's detention was authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which governs the arrest and detention of noncitizens pending removal proceedings. The court noted that § 1226(a) is only triggered when a noncitizen is arrested pursuant to a warrant. Under the court's prior reasoning in Velasco Hurtado v. Bondi, No. 0:26-CV-546, 2026 WL 184884 (D. Minn. Jan. 24, 2026), a person arrested under a warrant would be entitled to a bond hearing; a person not arrested under a warrant would be entitled to outright release.
Because the case presented only legal questions — a point the government itself did not dispute — the court declined to hold an evidentiary hearing, as permitted under 28 U.S.C. § 2243.
The Warrant Issue
The court placed considerable weight on the government's failure to produce the alleged warrant. The court had expressly directed the government in advance to address whether the petitioner was arrested pursuant to a warrant and, if so, to submit a copy. The government's brief established only that its counsel had asked his client (ICE) for proof of lawful detention and that ICE was unable to provide it. The court characterized the government's representation of an existing warrant as hearsay from an unnamed ICE official — legally insufficient to establish the lawfulness of the detention.
The court declined to invite a further response from the government, citing Fontenot v. Crow, 4 F.4th 982, 1058 (10th Cir. 2021), and explained that the purpose of a government's return (its formal response to a habeas petition) is to lay out the facts supporting denial — not to raise more questions. Because the government failed to substantiate the legal basis for detention, outright release was the appropriate remedy.
Ruling and Order
Judge Gerrard granted the petition for writ of habeas corpus in full, relying on the reasoning set forth in Velasco Hurtado v. Bondi. The court issued the following specific orders:
- The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is granted.
- The government must, if necessary, immediately return the petitioner to the District of Minnesota.
- Upon the petitioner's presence in Minnesota, the government must immediately release him from custody with no new conditions and must return any personal property seized from him at the time of detention.
- No later than March 4, 2026, the government must file a status report certifying compliance with the order.
Judgment was directed to be entered accordingly.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.