Jackson T.C. v. Blanche

Background

Jackson T.C. is a citizen of Venezuela who entered the United States in October 2021 and was temporarily paroled. He was later placed in removal proceedings and applied for asylum and withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture. His applications remained pending, and he had a work permit valid through 2030.

In February 2026, local police arrested Jackson on criminal sexual-conduct and domestic-assault charges. Immigration and Customs Enforcement issued an immigration arrest warrant and detainer the same day. The criminal charges were dismissed in May 2026. When Jackson was released from local custody, immigration officers served him with the warrant and arrested him. He remained detained at the Sherburne County Jail.

A magistrate judge recommended granting Jackson’s petition in part and requiring a bond hearing, concluding that his continued detention violated procedural due process under the Fifth Amendment. Both sides objected, requiring the district court to independently review the disputed issues.

Detention Authority

Jackson argued that he was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which generally permits release on bond or conditional parole. The government argued that detention was authorized under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), which requires detention of certain noncitizens treated as applicants for admission. Jackson’s immigration detainer also referred to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), which requires detention of certain noncitizens who committed, were charged with, or were sentenced for specified crimes.

The court found that Jackson had not presented evidence showing that he was detained under § 1226(a). Relying on the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Avila v. Bondi, the court held that Jackson could be detained under § 1225(b)(2)(A) because he remained in the United States without having been admitted. The court also determined that it did not need to decide whether the government actually invoked § 1225(b)(2)(A) or § 1226(c), because both provisions authorize mandatory detention in the circumstances addressed by the court.

Due Process

The government objected to the magistrate judge’s use of the balancing test from Mathews v. Eldridge. Judge Tostrud agreed with the government, relying on Eighth Circuit precedent holding that detention during removal proceedings is constitutionally valid. The court concluded that mandatory detention under either § 1225(b)(2)(A) or § 1226(c) was permissible while Jackson’s removal proceedings remained pending. Jackson’s procedural due-process claim therefore failed.

Fourth Amendment and Arrest-Warrant Claims

Jackson argued that his arrest violated the Fourth Amendment because the record did not establish a valid warrant and because immigration officials did not comply with the requirements for a warrantless arrest. The court rejected those arguments.

The court found that the Form I-200 warrant was signed by a Section Chief, an immigration official authorized by the cited regulation to issue such a warrant. The court acknowledged discrepancies between the warrant and an immigration record about who issued the warrant and when it was issued, but found those discrepancies minor. The court also found that the removal proceedings began before the warrant was issued, the warrant and detainer were lodged with the county jail, and Jackson was served with the warrant when he was released from local custody. The court concluded that the warrant procedures were properly followed and that Jackson’s Fourth Amendment claim failed.

The opinion also states that Jackson’s claims under the Accardi doctrine failed because officials followed the proper arrest procedures, although the magistrate judge had not ruled on those claims and Jackson did not raise them in his objection.

Disposition

The court sustained the respondents’ objections, overruled Jackson’s objections, and rejected the Report and Recommendation. Judge Tostrud denied Jackson T.C.’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and ordered judgment to be entered.