Manuel I. v. Bondi
Manuel I. v. Pamela Bondi, Attorney General; Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Todd M. Lyons, Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement; David Easterwood, Acting Director, St. Paul Field Office Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Joel Brott, Sheriff of Sherburne County Jail
- Susan Nelson
- 0:26-cv-01933
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 7
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Manuel I. v. Bondi, Judge Nelson granted a habeas petition and ordered ICE to immediately release a Minnesota resident detained without a warrant.
Noncitizens who entered the United States without inspection and have been residing in the country — particularly those detained by ICE in the District of Minnesota without an administrative warrant — may be affected by this ruling. It may also be relevant to immigration attorneys, ICE officials, and courts in the Eighth Circuit grappling with which detention statute applies to this population.
What happened
In Manuel I. v. Bondi (Case No. 26-CV-1933), Manuel I., a citizen of Ecuador living in Columbia Heights, Minnesota, was arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents on March 17, 2026, without a warrant, and held at the Sherburne County Jail. He filed a petition asking a federal court to order his immediate release, arguing that his detention was unlawful because no warrant had been issued and he was not subject to a final order of removal.
The central legal dispute was which immigration detention law applied to Manuel I. The government argued he was subject to mandatory detention under a provision of federal immigration law (8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)) that applies to people arriving at or near the border. The court disagreed, finding — consistent with its own prior rulings and those of most other federal courts — that because Manuel I. was already living in the United States when arrested, the applicable statute is 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which governs detention of noncitizens already residing in the country and requires a warrant before arrest and detention. The government did not produce a warrant, did not challenge the allegation that no warrant existed, and failed to respond to the court's direct order to address the warrant requirement.
Judge Susan Richard Nelson granted the petition and ordered Respondents — including the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and ICE officials — to release Manuel I. from custody immediately, within 48 hours. The court held that detention without a valid warrant lacks a lawful basis under § 1226(a), and that the appropriate remedy is release, not merely a bond hearing. The order also requires Respondents to notify Manuel I.'s attorney before release, return all of his personal property and documents, and prohibits re-detention based on the same legal theory the court rejected, absent materially changed circumstances.
The detailed version
- Manuel I. v. Bondi · No. 0:26-cv-01933
- Susan Nelson
- Mar. 22, 2026
Background
Manuel I. is a citizen of Ecuador who has resided in Columbia Heights, Minnesota since 2022. He alleges he is not subject to a final order of removal. On March 17, 2026, ICE agents arrested him — allegedly without a warrant — and placed him in detention at the Sherburne County Jail in Elk River, Minnesota.
On March 18, 2026, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (a court order requiring the government to justify a person's imprisonment) seeking either immediate release or a prompt bond hearing in Immigration Court. The court issued an Order to Show Cause on March 19, 2026, temporarily barring Respondents from moving Petitioner out of Minnesota, requiring them to explain the legal basis for his detention, and specifically directing them to address whether the absence of a warrant required his immediate release and to distinguish the case from the court's prior rulings in Maldonado v. Olson and E.M. v. Noem.
Respondents filed a two-paragraph response arguing that Petitioner was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) — the statutory provision governing persons deemed "applicants for admission" — relying on interim DHS/ICE guidance and a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision, Matter of Yajure Hurtado. Respondents did not produce a warrant, did not address the warrant requirement, and did not distinguish the case from the court's prior rulings.
Legal Framework: Which Detention Statute Applies?
The core statutory dispute is whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) or § 1226(a) governs the detention of noncitizens who entered the United States without inspection but have been residing here.
- § 1225(b)(2) authorizes mandatory detention (no bond hearing) for noncitizens deemed "applicants for admission" — a category the government argues includes anyone who entered without inspection, regardless of how long they have lived here. - § 1226(a) governs arrest and detention of noncitizens already residing in the country pending removal proceedings. It provides that "[o]n a warrant issued by the Attorney General, an alien may be arrested and detained." Detention under § 1226(a) is generally discretionary and may be reviewed at a bond hearing. An exception under § 1226(c) mandates detention for certain categories of noncitizens with criminal histories; Respondents did not argue that any § 1226(c) exception applied here.
The court noted that two federal courts of appeals have reached opposite conclusions on this question: the Seventh Circuit found petitioners in similar situations likely not subject to § 1225(b)(2) mandatory detention (Castañon-Nava v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec.), while the Fifth Circuit found they were (Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi). The issue is also pending before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Avila v. Bondi.
The Court's Analysis
Section 1226(a) Applies
Consistent with its prior decisions in Maldonado v. Olson and E.M. v. Noem, and the majority of district courts nationwide, this court held that § 1226(a) — not § 1225(b)(2) — governs the detention of noncitizens already residing in the United States when arrested. The court characterized § 1225(b)(2) as applicable to noncitizens at or near the border, not to those already living in the country. The court noted that Respondents' statutory interpretation arguments are preserved for appeal but declined to adopt them.
The Warrant Requirement
Section 1226(a) explicitly requires that arrest and detention be preceded by a warrant issued by the Attorney General. The court found that this warrant requirement is a substantive precondition to lawful detention, not merely a procedural formality. Petitioner alleged he was arrested without a warrant; Respondents did not produce one, did not contest this allegation, and did not address the warrant issue despite being directly ordered to do so.
Remedy: Immediate Release
The court held that where detention lacks a lawful predicate — specifically, where no warrant exists under § 1226(a) — the appropriate remedy is release, not a bond hearing. Granting only a bond hearing would, the court reasoned, treat the absence of statutory authority as a mere procedural irregularity rather than a substantive defect. The court cited consistent rulings from other judges in the District of Minnesota reaching the same conclusion (Ahmed M. v. Bondi; Juan S.R. v. Bondi; Vedat C. v. Bondi).
Order and Conditions
The court granted the petition and ordered:
- Respondents must release Petitioner immediately, no later than within 48 hours.
- Respondents must notify Petitioner's counsel within two hours before release, including the location and approximate release time.
- All of Petitioner's personal property — including identification documents, immigration documents, cell phone, clothing, and jewelry — must be returned upon release.
- Respondents may not administratively recharacterize the court-ordered release as grounds to impose or reimpose conditions of release (such as release on recognizance) without prior court authorization or a new, independently lawful custody decision.
- Respondents must file a confirmation of release on the court docket within 48 hours.
- Respondents may not re-detain Petitioner under the same statutory theory the court rejected, absent materially changed circumstances.
Jurisdiction
For the reasons stated in prior decisions (see Maldonado), the court found it has subject matter jurisdiction (the legal authority to hear the case). Respondents raised no jurisdictional objection.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.