A.G.G. v. Kandiyohi Jail Administrator
Kelvin A.G.G. v. Kandiyohi Jail Administrator; Peter Berg, Director, St. Paul Field Office Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Markwayne Mullin, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; and Todd Blanche, Attorney General of the United States
- John Tunheim
- 0:26-cv-03231
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 6
In Kelvin A.G.G. v. Kandiyohi Jail Administrator, Judge Tunheim granted a habeas petition, ruling that detaining an immigration detainee without an individualized bond hearing violates Fifth Amendment due process.
Noncitizens detained by immigration authorities under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) — the mandatory detention provision for "applicants for admission" — who are held without a bond hearing, particularly those already present in the United States when detained. The ruling also affects immigration enforcement officials in the District of Minnesota who detain individuals under this statutory authority.
What happened
In Kelvin A.G.G. v. Kandiyohi Jail Administrator, a man identified as Kelvin A.G.G., a citizen of Honduras who entered the United States without authorization around 2022, was arrested by immigration officials on June 12, 2026 following a traffic stop in North Dakota. He was subsequently transferred to the Kandiyohi County Jail in Minnesota, where he has been held without the opportunity to seek release on bond. He filed a petition asking the court to declare his detention unlawful and order his release or a hearing.
The government argued that a federal immigration statute — 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) — required Kelvin A.G.G. to be held without bond as someone deemed an "applicant for admission," a category that a recent federal appeals court ruling extended to people already present in the United States. The government contended that the Constitution does not require any additional procedures beyond what the statute provides. Kelvin A.G.G. countered that holding him indefinitely without any individualized hearing violates the Fifth Amendment's guarantee that no person shall be deprived of liberty without due process of law.
Judge John R. Tunheim granted the petition for a writ of habeas corpus — a court order requiring that a detained person's imprisonment be legally justified — finding that the Fifth Amendment's due process guarantee applies to all persons in the United States regardless of immigration status. Applying a balancing test from Mathews v. Eldridge, the court found that Kelvin A.G.G.'s liberty interest is significant, the risk that the government got it wrong is high, and the burden of holding a bond hearing is low. The court ordered the government to provide Kelvin A.G.G. with an individualized bond hearing within seven days, at which both sides may present evidence on whether he poses a danger or flight risk; if no hearing is held within that time, he must be immediately released.
The detailed version
- A.G.G. v. Kandiyohi Jail Administrator · No. 0:26-cv-03231
- John Tunheim
- Aug. 4, 2026
Background
Petitioner Kelvin A.G.G. is a citizen of Honduras who entered the United States without inspection in or around 2022 and, according to the petition, has resided peacefully with no criminal record. On June 12, 2026, a North Dakota Highway Patrol officer stopped him for speeding near Thompson, North Dakota, a location the court notes is less than 100 miles from the U.S.-Canada border. The officer requested assistance identifying Petitioner, and a U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent was notified. The officer told the Border Patrol agent that Petitioner had presented a Honduran ID card as his only identification and spoke only Spanish.
The Border Patrol agent arrived at the scene, identified himself as an immigration official, conducted an immigration inspection in Spanish, and took Petitioner into custody after Petitioner admitted to being unlawfully present. Petitioner was transported to the Pembina Border Patrol Station, where he was served with a Warrant for Arrest of Alien (Form I-200) and a Notice to Appear. He was transferred to ICE custody on June 16, 2026, held at a facility in Grand Forks, North Dakota, and then transferred to the Kandiyohi County Jail in Minnesota on June 24, 2026.
On July 9, 2026, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus — a legal mechanism by which a detained person challenges the lawfulness of their imprisonment — arguing that his detention violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The court issued an order the following day enjoining Respondents from transferring Petitioner outside the District of Minnesota and directing Respondents to file an answer by July 15, 2026. Respondents timely responded, and Petitioner replied.
Legal Framework
The court invoked 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3), which authorizes federal district courts to grant habeas relief to persons detained in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States. The court noted that, absent congressional suspension, the writ of habeas corpus is available to every individual detained within the United States, citing Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004).
The Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The court cited Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001), for the proposition that due process protections extend to all persons within the United States, including noncitizens, regardless of whether their presence is lawful or unlawful.
The Government's Position
Respondents asserted that Petitioner's detention is authorized by 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), which provides for mandatory detention — detention without the possibility of bond — for "applicants for admission" to the United States. The court noted that the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals (the federal appeals court with jurisdiction over this district) recently held in Avila v. Bondi, 170 F.4th 1128, 1138 (8th Cir. 2026), that an individual already present in the United States, like Petitioner, may nonetheless be classified as an "applicant for admission" subject to mandatory detention under that provision. The government argued that § 1225(b)(2)(A) expressly authorizes detention without a bond opportunity and that the Constitution requires nothing more.
The Court's Analysis
The court applied the balancing test from Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), which weighs three factors in procedural due process claims: (1) the private interest affected; (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation of that interest through the existing procedures and the probable value of additional safeguards; and (3) the government's interest, including the administrative and fiscal burden of providing additional procedures.
The court relied on its prior decision in Axel J.M.C. v. Stanski, Civil No. 26-2281, 2026 WL 1171344 (D. Minn. Apr. 29, 2026), and concluded that all three Mathews factors favor Petitioner: his liberty interest is significant, the risk of erroneous deprivation is high, and the burden the government would bear in providing an individualized bond hearing is low. Based on this analysis, the court held that Petitioner's continued detention without an individualized bond hearing violates his Fifth Amendment right to procedural due process.
Because the Fifth Amendment claim was sufficient to grant relief, the court declined to address Petitioner's other claims under the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.
Disposition and Order
The court granted Petitioner Kelvin A.G.G.'s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The order requires:
- Respondents must provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing within seven days of the order, at which both sides may present evidence and argument on whether Petitioner poses a danger to the community or a flight risk if not detained.
- If Respondents fail to hold the required hearing within seven days, Petitioner must be immediately released from detention.
- By 5:00 P.M. on August 14, 2026, the parties must provide the court with a status update on the results of any bond hearing held, or advise the court of Petitioner's release if no hearing was held, and indicate whether further proceedings are needed.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.