Kurt D. v. Blanche

Background

Kurt D. is a citizen of Jamaica who became a lawful permanent resident of the United States in July 2008. The opinion states that he had multiple criminal convictions in North Dakota state court. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrested him on May 13, 2026, after executing an I-200 warrant issued the previous day. ICE then served him with a Notice to Appear (NTA), the charging document used to begin immigration-removal proceedings. Kurt was detained at the Sherburne County Jail in Minnesota.

Kurt petitioned for release from immigration detention and asked the court to permanently prevent the respondents from detaining him again under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). He asserted claims under the Fifth Amendment and Fourth Amendment. The respondents argued that he was subject to mandatory detention under § 1226(c) and that he had not exhausted available administrative remedies by appealing the immigration judge’s custody decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Warrant and Notice-to-Appear Requirement

The court focused on whether the I-200 warrant was valid. It interpreted 8 C.F.R. §§ 236.1(b) and 1236.1(b) to require the NTA to be issued before, or at least at the same time as, the I-200 warrant and arrest. The court noted that the parties disagreed about whether Kurt’s detention was discretionary under § 1226(a) or mandatory under § 1226(c), but agreed that a valid I-200 warrant was required for detention under § 1226.

The record showed that the I-200 warrant was issued on May 12, 2026. ICE executed it and arrested Kurt on May 13. The NTA was also issued on May 13, but the record suggested that officials issued it after arresting Kurt. The court concluded that the warrant was invalid because it was issued before the NTA, even though the documents were issued on consecutive days and the arrest and NTA occurred on the same day. The warrant stated, in part, that a charging document had been executed, but the NTA had not yet been issued when the warrant was issued.

Because a valid warrant was a condition for lawful detention under § 1226, the court concluded that Kurt’s detention was unlawful and that release was the appropriate remedy. The court did not decide Kurt’s other asserted grounds for relief, including his challenges to mandatory detention, because the warrant issue resolved the petition.

Exhaustion

The respondents argued that the petition should be denied because Kurt had not appealed the immigration judge’s custody decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals. The court explained that federal law does not require a person bringing a detention challenge under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to exhaust administrative remedies before filing in federal court. Although courts may apply a judicially created exhaustion requirement in appropriate circumstances, the court declined to require exhaustion here because Kurt’s detention was unlawful from the time of his arrest and requiring him to remain detained while awaiting an uncertain administrative result would conflict with due process.

Recommendation and Effect

Judge Foster recommended that Kurt’s habeas petition be granted and that the respondents release him as soon as practicable, inside Minnesota, at a safe time and place communicated in advance to counsel, with his personal effects in the respondents’ possession. She recommended denying Kurt’s request for a permanent injunction against future detention under § 1226(c), explaining that any future detention would have to be evaluated based on the circumstances and reasons existing at that time.

The document is a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, not a final district court order or judgment. The respondents were instructed to file objections by August 11, 2026, and Kurt could respond by August 13, 2026. The notice states that the Report and Recommendation was not directly appealable to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.