Murek v. Albarran

Background

Mariusz Murek filed a petition and amended petition for release from custody, followed by an application for a temporary restraining order, or TRO. The respondents were identified as Sergio Albarran, Acting Field Office Director of the San Francisco Immigration and Customs Enforcement office; David J. Venturella, Acting ICE Director; Markwayne Mullin, Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security; and Todd Blanche, Acting Attorney General of the United States.

The opinion states that Murek is a 40-year-old native and citizen of Poland who entered the United States on a tourist visa on May 2, 2017. He had lived in the United States continuously since then, most recently working as a property manager and handyman in Petaluma, California. He is married and has a 9-month-old son who is a United States citizen. The opinion states that Murek is his wife and child’s sole financial support and has no criminal history in the United States or elsewhere.

Murek’s tourist visa expired on May 17, 2026. On September 20, 2026, ICE arrested him at San Francisco International Airport as he was preparing to take a domestic flight to Phoenix, Arizona. The opinion states that Murek was not aware of any removal order against him. His counsel attempted to contact ICE about communicating with him, but ICE did not respond before the petition and TRO application were filed.

Legal standard

A TRO uses substantially the same standard as a preliminary injunction. The applicant must show a likelihood of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without immediate relief, that the balance of equities favors the applicant, and that an injunction would serve the public interest. A court may also issue relief when there are serious questions about the merits, the balance of hardships sharply favors the applicant, and the other two factors are satisfied.

Discussion

TRO without notice. The court found that the requirements for issuing a TRO without notice were satisfied. Murek’s counsel submitted a declaration describing specific facts showing that immediate and irreparable harm could occur before the respondents could respond. The court also noted that the petition had been sent to Civil Chief Pamela Johann and that she had been advised that the TRO application would be filed on September 20, 2026. The court concluded that additional notice was not required before the application was filed.

Likelihood of success or serious questions. Murek’s amended petition asserted two claims under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause: one procedural due process claim and one substantive due process claim. The court found that Murek had shown a likelihood of success on those claims or, at minimum, serious questions about their merits.

The court explained that due process protections apply to all persons in the United States, including noncitizens. It reasoned that a government decision not to detain a person when a visa expires can create a protected liberty interest in continued freedom, particularly when the person has formed ordinary life attachments during years in the country. The court found that Murek had formed those attachments by living and working in the United States for eight years, marrying, and raising a citizen child with his wife in the Petaluma community. Relying on a prior related proceeding in the same district, the court found the circumstances materially indistinguishable and concluded that the first TRO factor was satisfied.

Irreparable harm. The court found that Murek was likely to suffer irreparable harm without a TRO. It cited recognized harms associated with immigration detention, including financial burdens on detainees and their families, and found those risks present because Murek supported his wife and infant son.

Balance of equities and public interest. Because the government was the opposing party, the court considered these two factors together. It found a strong public interest in protecting procedural safeguards against unlawful detention and concluded that Murek faced loss of liberty without relief. The court found the potential harm to the respondents comparatively minimal because the order would create only a short delay in detaining Murek while the request for injunctive relief was litigated. It concluded that both factors sharply favored Murek.

Security. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), a court may require security before issuing a TRO or preliminary injunction. The court exercised its discretion not to require security because it perceived no prejudice to the respondents from the TRO.

Order

The court granted Murek’s TRO application to preserve the status quo pending further briefing and a hearing. The respondents were ordered to release Murek immediately from their custody and were barred from re-detaining him while the TRO was effective. They were also barred from removing him from the judicial district or from the United States and were ordered to return him to the district if they had already removed him from it.

The respondents were ordered to show cause at an in-person hearing on September 30, 2026, why a preliminary injunction should not issue. Their response was due by noon on September 25, 2026, and any reply was due by noon on September 28, 2026, subject to modification by the assigned judge. Murek was required to serve the respondents with the petition, summons, and order by noon on September 22, 2026. The respondents were required to file a compliance report by 5:00 p.m. that day. The order stated that it would remain effective until 10:00 p.m. on October 4, 2026. The court’s personal name is not fully legible in the provided opinion text.