Kamara v. Blanche
Hegeh K. v. Todd Blanche, Acting Attorney General; Markwayne Mullin, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; David Venturella, Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; David Easterwood, Acting Director, St. Paul Field Office, Immigration & Customs Enforcement; and Joel Brott, Sheriff, Sherburne County
- John Tunheim
- 0:26-cv-03087
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Hegeh K. v. Blanche, Judge Tunheim granted a petition for release from immigration detention, finding that ICE arrested Hegeh K. using a warrant issued nearly two years before removal proceedings began.
Noncitizens detained by ICE using Form I-200 administrative arrest warrants that were issued before the issuance of a Notice to Appear (the document initiating formal removal proceedings). This ruling may be relevant to others in similar circumstances in the District of Minnesota.
What happened
In Hegeh K. v. Blanche, No. 26-3087, Hegeh K., a citizen of Liberia who entered the United States under a grant of asylum in 1995, was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on April 20, 2026. The arrest was based on a Form I-200 warrant — ICE's administrative arrest warrant — that had been issued on April 24, 2024, nearly two years earlier. His Notice to Appear, which formally initiates removal proceedings, was issued on the same day as his arrest, April 20, 2026.
Hegeh K. filed a petition asking the federal court to order his release, arguing his detention was unlawful under the Fourth Amendment because the arrest warrant was invalid. ICE regulations allow an I-200 warrant to be used to arrest and detain a noncitizen at the time a Notice to Appear is issued or any time after that — but not before. Because the warrant here was issued nearly two years before the Notice to Appear, it did not comply with that regulation. The government argued the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case, but the court rejected that argument, stating it has consistently ruled on claims that ICE failed to follow its own regulations.
Judge John R. Tunheim granted Hegeh K.'s petition and ordered the government to release him within 48 hours of the order, along with all personal effects such as identification documents, and without conditions like location tracking devices. The court found the arrest unlawful and release to be the proper remedy.
The detailed version
- Kamara v. Blanche · No. 0:26-cv-03087
- John Tunheim
- Aug. 4, 2026
Background
Hegeh K. is a citizen of Liberia who entered the United States in 1995 under a grant of asylum. The opinion notes he has a history of criminal activity, including 2024 convictions for theft and violating a domestic abuse no contact order.
On April 20, 2026, ICE arrested Hegeh K. The government relied on a Form I-200 Warrant of Arrest — the administrative warrant ICE uses to detain noncitizens — that had been issued on April 24, 2024, nearly two years before the arrest. The Notice to Appear (the document that formally initiates removal proceedings before an immigration judge) was issued on April 20, 2026, the same day as the arrest.
Following arrest, Hegeh K. sought a custody redetermination before an immigration judge. The immigration judge found that his criminal convictions made him subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1)(B) and denied bond. He was held at Sherburne County Jail.
Hegeh K. filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus — a legal request asking a court to order the government to justify or end a person's detention — on June 25, 2026, and filed an amended petition later that day. He is listed as a pro se petitioner, meaning he filed without a lawyer. Respondents — federal officials and the county sheriff — were represented by the United States Attorney's Office.
Legal Framework
Jurisdiction
Respondents argued the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the petition. The court rejected that argument, stating it has consistently exercised jurisdiction over claims that ICE failed to follow its own regulations in arresting and detaining a person.
The Regulatory Requirement
The key regulation at issue is 8 C.F.R. § 236.1, which authorizes certain ICE officials to arrest a noncitizen and take them into custody "under the authority of Form I-200, Warrant of Arrest" only "[a]t the time of issuance of [a] notice to appear, or at any time thereafter and up to the time removal proceedings are completed." In other words, an I-200 warrant is only valid if it is issued at or after the issuance of a Notice to Appear — not before.
Application to This Case
The court found the I-200 warrant invalid because it was issued on April 24, 2024 — nearly two years before the Notice to Appear was issued on April 20, 2026. The record contained nothing showing Hegeh K. had been subject to a Notice to Appear on the date the warrant was issued. The court described the invalidity of the warrant as "undisputed" and cited two prior decisions from the same district reaching the same conclusion in similar circumstances: Francisco M.A. v. Blanche, Civ. No. 26-2032, 2026 WL 1229701 (D. Minn. May 5, 2026), and Hector J.A.S. v. Shea, Civ. No. 26-2242, 2026 WL 1243500 (D. Minn. May 6, 2026).
Although Hegeh K. initially raised several claims, he clarified in supplemental briefing that he was pursuing only a Fourth Amendment challenge to his arrest and detention based on the invalid warrant.
Disposition
Judge Tunheim granted Hegeh K.'s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The order requires:
- Respondents must release Hegeh K. from custody as soon as practicable, and no later than 48 hours from the filing of the order.
- Respondents must return all personal effects — such as driver's licenses, passports, or immigration documents — and may not impose conditions such as location tracking devices.
- The parties must provide the court with a status update regarding Hegeh K.'s release by 5:00 p.m. on August 7, 2026, and advise the court whether further proceedings are required.
The court did not address the mandatory detention statute (8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)) on the merits, basing its ruling solely on the invalidity of the arrest warrant under ICE's own regulations.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.