Alan R.M. v. Blanche

Background

Alan R.M. has been detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) since June 28, 2026. The opinion states that he is a native and citizen of Mexico who entered the United States in 2019 or 2020 without inspection. ICE officers encountered him during a vehicle stop in Faribault, Minnesota. After he gave inconsistent statements about his citizenship and legal status, ICE issued an administrative warrant and arrested him. ICE also issued a notice to appear, beginning removal proceedings.

On July 10, 2026, Alan R.M. filed a one-count petition for a writ of habeas corpus, meaning a court challenge to allegedly unlawful custody. He alleged that his detention during the immigration proceedings violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. He requested immediate release or, alternatively, a bond hearing, and asked that his belongings be released with him. He also requested an order preventing the Government from transferring him out of the District of Minnesota; the magistrate judge stated that he lacked authority to grant that request and that it would become moot once the petition was decided.

Parties’ Arguments

Alan R.M. argued that the court should apply the three-part test from Mathews v. Eldridge to decide whether his detention violated due process. The Government argued that binding Eighth Circuit precedent, including Banyee v. Garland, foreclosed his challenge.

Analysis

The court agreed with the Government. It relied on Banyee, in which the Eighth Circuit stated that detention during deportation proceedings is constitutionally valid, that due process imposes no time limit on detention pending deportation, and that the Government may detain a noncitizen while removal proceedings remain pending.

The court also found persuasive an earlier District of Minnesota decision concluding that Banyee and Demore v. Kim control comparable procedural due process challenges. Although the earlier decision discussed mandatory detention under specific immigration statutes, this court concluded that nothing in Banyee limited its reasoning to detention under one particular statute. The opinion does not identify a specific detention statute as the basis for Alan R.M.’s detention. The court therefore concluded that his sole claim—that detention pending removal violated procedural due process—was foreclosed by binding precedent.

Recommendation and Review

Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz recommended that Alan R.M.’s petition be denied. The document states that it is a report and recommendation, not a district court order or judgment, and that it is not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit. A party may file specific written objections within five days after being served with the report and recommendation.