Ge Y. v. Noem
Ge Y. v. Kristi Noem, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security; Todd M. Lyons, Acting Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and David Easterwood, Acting Director, St. Paul Field Office Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:26-cv-01700
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Ge Y. v. Noem, Judge Menendez granted Ge Y.'s petition for release from immigration detention, ordering his immediate release in Minnesota.
People held in immigration detention who challenge their detention by filing a habeas petition in federal court, particularly those subject to Orders of Supervision from immigration authorities.
What happened
In Ge Y. v. Noem (No. 26-cv-1700), a man identified as Ge Y. filed a petition asking a federal court to order his release from immigration detention, arguing that the government was holding him unlawfully. A magistrate judge had reviewed the case and recommended that the petition be granted, finding that the government was imposing conditions on Ge Y. beyond those allowed under a January 14, 2013 Order of Supervision.
The government officials named as respondents — including the Secretary of Homeland Security and acting directors of Immigration and Customs Enforcement — did not file any objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation within the time allowed. Because no objections were filed, the district court reviewed the recommendation only for clear error, a more limited form of review.
Judge Katherine M. Menendez found no error in the magistrate's recommendation and adopted it in full. She ordered the respondents to immediately release Ge Y. in Minnesota, to return all personal effects seized during his arrest — including identification and immigration documents — and to confirm his release within 48 hours of the order. The court specified that any release conditions must not exceed those set in his January 14, 2013 Order of Supervision.
The detailed version
- Ge Y. v. Noem · No. 0:26-cv-01700
- Katherine Menendez
- Mar. 23, 2026
Background
Petitioner Ge Y. filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus — a legal request asking a court to order the government to release a person it is holding — challenging his immigration detention. The respondents are Kristi Noem (Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security), Todd M. Lyons (Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement), and David Easterwood (Acting Director of the St. Paul Field Office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement).
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
On March 17, 2026, United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending that Ge Y.'s habeas petition be granted. Because Ge Y.'s liberty was at stake, Judge Brisbois shortened the standard 14-day period for the parties to file objections to the R&R.
No Objections Filed
The respondents did not file objections within the shortened deadline, nor in the additional days that followed. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), when no objections are filed to a magistrate judge's R&R, the district court reviews it only for "clear error" — a standard that is more deferential than a full independent review. The court cited Nur v. Olmsted County and Grinder v. Gammon in applying this standard.
Court's Ruling
Judge Menendez found no clear error in the R&R and adopted it in full. The court:
- Accepted the R&R (Dkt. 9).
- Granted Ge Y.'s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
- Ordered respondents to immediately release Ge Y. in Minnesota, without imposing conditions greater than those specifically set forth in his January 14, 2013 Order of Supervision.
- Ordered respondents to return all personal effects seized during his arrest, including identification documents and immigration documentation.
- Ordered respondents to confirm Ge Y.'s release from custody in Minnesota within 48 hours of the order.
The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Notes
The opinion adopts the R&R without independently setting out the factual and legal basis for why Ge Y.'s detention was unlawful — those details are contained in the underlying R&R (Dkt. 9), which is not reproduced here. The court's order references a January 14, 2013 Order of Supervision as the controlling document governing any permissible conditions on Ge Y. but does not describe the contents of that document.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.