Castillo Maradiaga v. Decker
- Katherine Failla
- 1:21-cv-00842
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Castillo Maradiaga v. Decker, Judge Failla clarified that a preliminary injunction stayed removal and required release while the detention challenge continued.
Javier Castillo Maradiaga, the Government, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement were affected by the clarified removal stay, release, supervision terms, and temporary stay of the ruling.
What happened
In Castillo Maradiaga v. Decker, the court clarified an oral decision issued on March 4, 2021, that had granted Javier Castillo Maradiaga’s request for temporary protection and release.
The relief was limited to stopping his removal while his detention case was decided and releasing him during that case. The court approved the parties’ proposed terms requiring supervision by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla kept the March 4 ruling in place through March 10, 2021, so the Government could seek review by the Second Circuit.
The detailed version
- Castillo Maradiaga v. Decker · No. 1:21-cv-00842
- Katherine Failla
- Mar. 9, 2021
Background
On March 4, 2021, the court orally granted Javier Castillo Maradiaga’s motion for a preliminary injunction and for release under Mapp v. Reno. On March 8, 2021, the Government asked the court to clarify the scope of the relief. The parties also jointly proposed terms for Castillo Maradiaga’s release during the pending detention challenge.
Court’s clarification
The court stated that the relief was limited to the two forms of relief sought in the motion: (1) a stay of removal until the court ultimately decided the habeas petition, which challenged the detention; and (2) release from custody while that case was pending. The court approved the proposed release terms, which required an Order of Supervision administered by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Disposition
Judge Katherine Polk Failla stated that the March 4 ruling would remain stayed through March 10, 2021, to allow the Government to pursue an appeal in the Second Circuit if it chose to do so. This March 9 order clarified the earlier relief and approved the release conditions; it did not decide the ultimate habeas petition in this text.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.