Maaz v. Albarran

Background

Edgar Rene Mucu Maaz filed a petition challenging his immigration detention and an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order. The respondents were identified as Sergio Albarran, Acting Field Office Director of the San Francisco Immigration and Customs Enforcement office; David Venturella, Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Markwayne Mullin, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; and Todd Blanche, the United States Attorney General.

According to the petition, Mr. Mucu Maaz is an asylum seeker from Guatemala who entered the United States on or about July 27, 2023. He was initially detained and then released under an order requiring periodic check-ins with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. His asylum application remained pending. He was arrested on June 20, 2026, in Concord, California, and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol and driving without a valid driver’s license. The opinion states that the criminal case remained pending and that this was his first and only criminal arrest.

After Mr. Mucu Maaz’s bond obligor received notice to bring him to the San Francisco Field Office for an interview, Immigration and Customs Enforcement detained him when he appeared on August 14, 2026. The agency stated that he had violated the terms of his release. The opinion also states that he was a member of a certified class in an earlier related proceeding challenging the Department of Homeland Security’s policy of re-arresting and re-detaining certain class members without a change in their individual circumstances concerning dangerousness or flight.

Legal standard

A temporary restraining order uses the same standard as a preliminary injunction. The court considered whether Mr. Mucu Maaz showed a likelihood of success or, under the alternative standard, serious questions on the merits; likely irreparable harm without immediate relief; and that the balance of hardships and the public interest favored relief. Because the government was the opposing party, the court treated the last two factors together.

The court also considered Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1), which permits an order without notice when specific facts show that immediate and irreparable injury may occur before the opposing party can respond. The court found that requirement satisfied.

Court’s reasoning

The court found at least serious questions about Mr. Mucu Maaz’s due-process claim under the Fifth Amendment. It explained that freedom from government custody is a protected liberty interest and that courts have found people released from immigration custody on bond to have a liberty interest in remaining out of custody on bond.

Using the three-factor test from Mathews v. Eldridge, the court found that Mr. Mucu Maaz had a substantial private interest in remaining out of custody so that he could live at home and work. The court also found a risk of erroneous deprivation that a pre-detention hearing could reduce. It concluded that the government’s interest in re-detaining him without a hearing was low, particularly because he had appeared for prior immigration hearings and had no criminal record according to the opinion.

The court further found that immigration detention posed immediate and irreparable harm, including economic burdens on detainees and their families. It concluded that the balance of hardships and the public interest favored Mr. Mucu Maaz because the public has a strong interest in procedural protections against unlawful detention and the potential harm to the respondents from a short delay was minimal.

Order

The court granted the ex parte application for a temporary restraining order and determined that no security or bond was required. It ordered Mr. Mucu Maaz released to preserve the existing situation pending further briefing and a hearing. It barred the respondents from transferring him out of the district or deporting him while the proceedings continued. It also barred them from re-detaining him without notice and a pre-detention hearing before a neutral decisionmaker. That restraint was set to remain in effect until August 28, 2026, at 4:30 p.m.

The court required service of the petition, motion, and order by August 15, 2026, at noon, and required Mr. Mucu Maaz to file proof of service by August 16, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. The respondents had to provide a status report confirming his release by August 15, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. The court also ordered the respondents to appear and explain at an August 20, 2026 hearing why a preliminary injunction should not issue. This order granted temporary relief; it did not decide the final outcome of the detention challenge.