Ludin D.B.P. v. Mullin

Background

Ludin D.B.P. filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a procedure allowing a detained person to challenge the legality of the detention. The opinion states that Ludin is a citizen of Guatemala who entered the United States in 2020 at age seventeen as an unaccompanied child. Immigration officials detained him, placed him in removal proceedings, and later released him. He subsequently applied for asylum, received employment authorization, and lived in Melrose, Minnesota, with his United States-citizen daughter.

On May 4, 2026, Ludin was arrested in Stearns County, Minnesota, on suspicion of driving while intoxicated. He was transferred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody after his release and remained detained at the Sherburne County Jail. The opinion states that he had not been charged with an offense related to that arrest and that the record did not show the status of any possible criminal proceedings. It also states that he had two traffic tickets but no criminal record.

The Department of Homeland Security began removal proceedings under sections 212(a)(6)(A)(i) and 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. An immigration hearing was scheduled for May 19, 2026, but the parties did not update the court about what happened at that hearing. Ludin filed his detention petition on May 8, 2026, seeking immediate release.

Claims and arguments

Ludin claimed that his continued detention violated procedural due process under the Fifth Amendment, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The respondents argued that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) authorized mandatory detention because Ludin was a noncitizen present in the United States without lawful admission. Ludin acknowledged that the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit had foreclosed his Immigration and Nationality Act argument, but he preserved that issue for appeal. The report did not address that argument.

For the due-process claim, Ludin argued that the court should apply the three-part balancing test from Mathews v. Eldridge. That test weighs the person’s private interest, the risk that existing procedures will wrongly deprive the person of that interest and the value of additional safeguards, and the government’s interests and administrative burdens. The respondents argued that the test did not apply because detention could continue while removal proceedings were pending.

Analysis

The report concludes that the Fifth Amendment’s due-process protections apply to Ludin because he is physically present in the United States. It finds that the interest in freedom from detention favored Ludin, particularly because he was held under conditions resembling criminal incarceration and was separated from his child and unable to work.

The report also finds a substantial risk of an erroneous deprivation of liberty when a person in Ludin’s circumstances is detained without an individualized determination. It states that an individualized hearing would allow both sides to address whether continued detention was needed to ensure appearance at immigration proceedings or to protect the community. The report notes that Ludin had applied for asylum, sought expedited consideration of that application, had apparently remained law abiding apart from traffic tickets, and had not been charged or convicted for the suspected driving-while-intoxicated offense.

The report recognizes the government’s interests in administering immigration laws uniformly and ensuring that people remain available for removal proceedings. It concludes, however, that requiring a bond hearing would provide an important safeguard without imposing significant burdens on the government.

Recommended disposition

The report recommends that the petition be granted in part. Specifically, it recommends determining that Ludin’s detention without an individualized bond hearing under § 1225(b)(2) violates due process; ordering the respondents to provide a bond hearing within one week after issuance of the district court’s order; and requiring notice to the court within two hours after the hearing is scheduled.

The report further recommends that, if the hearing results in release, the respondents release Ludin to Minnesota at a safe time and place communicated to his counsel at least two hours in advance, with his personal effects. If no bond hearing occurs within one week, it recommends immediate release into Minnesota under the same stated conditions. It also recommends requiring a status report within 48 hours after the bond hearing or the respondents’ decision to release him.

Finally, the report recommends that the remainder of the petition be denied without prejudice. The report states that it did not reach Ludin’s Administrative Procedure Act arguments because the due-process ruling provided the basis for relief. This document is a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, not a final order or judgment of the district court, and the opinion states that it is not directly appealable to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.