Index
All articles
Every piece of commentary on this site, grouped by category and sorted by decision date.
J.G.G. v. Trump: Constructive Custody, Contempt, and the Return of the CECOT Class
Chief Judge Boasberg held that the United States retains “constructive custody” over migrants delivered to El Salvador’s CECOT prison at U.S. direction and ordered the government to either return them or provide them with the due process they were denied. The opinion is the most ambitious habeas remedy yet attempted against an extraterritorial removal.
W.M.M./A.A.R.P. v. Trump: The Fifth Circuit Defines “Invasion”
A two-to-one Fifth Circuit panel rejected the AEA proclamation, defining “invasion” as the entry of an organized military force directed by a foreign nation. The full court voted to rehear en banc and vacated the injunction; oral argument was held January 22, 2026, and the en banc court’s decision remains pending.
A.A.R.P. v. Trump: A 1:00 a.m. Injunction and the Constitutional Floor of Notice
Twenty-four hours' notice in English of imminent removal under the Alien Enemies Act is constitutionally inadequate. The Supreme Court said so in a per curiam decision that began with a 1:00 a.m. emergency injunction and ended with a strong rebuke of the Fifth Circuit and the Northern District of Texas.
A.S.R. v. Trump: The Outlier — A District Court Endorses the AEA Proclamation
Judge Stephanie Haines became the first federal judge in the country to uphold the March 2025 invocation of the Alien Enemies Act. Even her opinion required twenty-one days' notice before removal — a tacit concession that even where the proclamation stands, summary deportation does not.
G.F.F. v. Trump: A Manhattan District Court Says the AEA Means What It Says
Judge Alvin Hellerstein granted a preliminary injunction and certified a class in S.D.N.Y., holding the AEA proclamation “exceeded the scope” of the statute. The opinion is notable for its forensic attention to the inadequate process the named plaintiffs had received about why they had been designated as enemies at all.
D.B.U. v. Trump: Twenty-One Days' Notice in the Detainee’s Language
Judge Charlotte Sweeney granted a preliminary injunction and certified a District of Colorado class, holding the AEA proclamation likely unlawful and requiring twenty-one days' notice in the detainee’s language before any AEA removal. The Tenth Circuit denied the government’s emergency stay.
J.A.V. v. Trump: A Trump-Appointed Judge Reads the Word “Invasion”
The first federal judge to rule on the merits of the March 2025 AEA proclamation was a Trump appointee, and he ruled against the government. Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr.'s opinion in <em>J.A.V.</em> reads the word “invasion” the way the Founders did — and concludes that Tren de Aragua is not one.
Noem v. Abrego Garcia: “Facilitate” the Return
A unanimous per curiam confirmed that when the United States removes a person to a foreign prison in admitted violation of an existing court order, the district court may require the government to “facilitate” that person’s return. The opinion supplied the doctrinal foundation for the constructive-custody theory that has reshaped the AEA docket.
Trump v. J.G.G.: The Supreme Court Routes the Alien Enemies Act Through Habeas
A 5–4 per curiam vacated Chief Judge Boasberg’s D.D.C. TRO and held that challenges to removal under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act must be brought as habeas petitions in the district of confinement. The decision was a procedural defeat for the petitioners and a substantive defeat for the government.
Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi: The Fifth Circuit Sides With the Government on EWI Detention
A divided Fifth Circuit panel held that all noncitizens present without admission — regardless of length of residence or community ties — are “applicants for admission” subject to mandatory § 1225(b)(2) detention. The decision reverses two district-court habeas grants and creates the cleanest possible circuit split on the central detention question of the 2025 enforcement era.
Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz: A Nationwide Class Restores Bond Eligibility for EWI Detainees
Judge Sunshine Sykes certified a nationwide class and entered final judgment rejecting the Trump administration's recategorization of long-resident EWI noncitizens as “applicants for admission” subject to mandatory § 1225(b)(2) detention. The ruling restored bond eligibility — until the Fifth Circuit said otherwise.
Castañón Nava v. DHS: A Seventh Circuit Motions Panel Rejects the Government’s Detention Theory
On a motion to stay an interim release order entered after “Operation Midway Blitz” in Chicagoland, a Seventh Circuit motions panel found DHS unlikely to succeed on the merits of its expanded mandatory-detention theory. The first federal appellate ruling rejecting the post-July 2025 framework, even in motions posture.
Black v. Almodovar: The Second Circuit Reaffirms Its Prolonged-Detention Framework
After substitution of respondents and a renewed government effort to walk back <em>Black v. Decker</em>, the Second Circuit reaffirmed the framework: prolonged § 1226(c) detention requires a bond hearing, and the government bears the burden of justifying continued custody by clear and convincing evidence.
Banyee v. Garland: The Eighth Circuit Says “No Time Limit”
A two-to-one Eighth Circuit panel reversed a habeas grant and held that the Due Process Clause “imposes no time limit on detention pending deportation” under § 1226(c). The decision sharpened the prolonged-detention circuit split and is now the principal adverse authority cited by the government nationwide.
Black v. Decker: The Second Circuit Sets a Clear-and-Convincing Floor for Prolonged § 1226(c) Detention
Two longtime lawful permanent residents had spent more than a year in mandatory criminal-alien detention without a bond hearing. The Second Circuit held that, after some indefinite point of unreasonableness, the Due Process Clause required one — and required the government to bear its burden by clear and convincing evidence.
Padilla v. ICE: A Credible-Fear Class Settlement and an Open Bond-Hearing Question
A long-running class action over delays in credible-fear interviews and bond-hearing procedures for asylum seekers detained under § 1225(b) settled in early 2024 on the credible-fear claims; the bond-hearing claims continued on interlocutory appeal and were argued in the Ninth Circuit in May 2025.
Abedi v. Choate: A Twenty-Three-Year Order of Supervision and a Recalcitrant Country
An Iranian national had lived for twenty-three years on supervised release after a 2002 conviction and a final removal order to “any country other than Iran.” Iran is on the recalcitrant-country list and refused travel documents in 2009. The District of Kansas ordered him released.
De Souza-Ferreira v. Decker: When CAT Withholding Meets Indefinite Detention
A Brazilian national who had been granted CAT withholding to Brazil could not be removed there. Government speculation about a third-country resettlement was insufficient under <em>Zadvydas</em> to justify nine months of continued detention. Habeas granted.
Daley v. Choate: EAJA Fees Are Available in Immigration Habeas
A 450-day detainee won her habeas petition; her counsel sought $18,553.92 in EAJA fees. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the award and held that § 2241 immigration habeas is a “civil action” within EAJA. The decision aligns the Tenth with the Second, Third, and Ninth Circuits and materially expands the bar’s capacity to take such cases.
Cruz Medina v. Noem: Re-Detention From Supervised Release and the Modern Zadvydas Docket
A Mexican national living for nearly five years on an Order of Supervision was re-detained at an ICE check-in. The District of Maryland ordered the government to justify continued detention, then enjoined his removal pending IJ review of his reasonable-fear determination.
Nguyen v. Hyde: Zadvydas Reaches the Pre-1995 Vietnamese Cohort, Again
A pre-1995 Vietnamese arrival re-detained after years on supervised release won habeas in the District of Massachusetts. Vietnam’s 2008 repatriation agreement excludes pre-1995 arrivals; on that record, the court held there was no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Martinez v. Clark: Habeas Review of Bond-Hearing Dangerousness Determinations Survives
On remand from the Supreme Court’s GVR after <em>Wilkinson v. Garland</em>, the Ninth Circuit held that federal courts retain jurisdiction in habeas to review the legal and constitutional components of immigration-judge dangerousness determinations — even though, on the merits, the petitioner lost.
Eswatini, Uganda, Rwanda, Ghana: The New Third-Country Architecture
A series of bilateral agreements with African nations — Eswatini, Rwanda, Uganda, Ghana — created a new architecture for third-country removals. The U.S. side faces ongoing class litigation; the foreign side has begun to produce its own habeas-equivalent challenges, most notably in the Uganda Law Society’s 2026 court action.
D.V.D. v. DHS: A Class Action Against Removal Without Notice or Screening
Judge Brian Murphy certified a nationwide class, declared the Trump administration’s third-country removal policy unlawful, and set the policy aside under the APA. The case is the structural anchor of every challenge to the post-2025 third-country removal architecture.
AAUP v. Rubio: A Judicial Finding That a Detention Policy Was Designed to Chill Speech
After a two-week bench trial, Judge William Young (a Reagan appointee) found that the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security had pursued a policy of arresting and removing noncitizen students and faculty engaged in pro-Palestinian protest with the purpose of chilling protected speech. The opinion is the most thoroughly developed factual record on the 2025 student-detention regime.
The South Sudan Flights: Removal as Operational Defiance
ICE placed six noncitizens on a flight to South Sudan with less than twenty-four hours’ notice in violation of an existing court order. The flight was diverted to Djibouti. Six weeks later, after the Supreme Court’s shadow-docket stay, the men were flown on to South Sudan. Six remained in custody there as of January 2026.
DHS v. D.V.D.: The Supreme Court’s Shadow-Docket Stay of the Murphy Injunction
Without explanation, the Supreme Court stayed the Murphy preliminary injunction in June 2025; on July 3, the Court clarified the stay reached the eight men still held at Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti. Justice Sotomayor's dissent began: “In matters of life and death, it is best to proceed with caution.”
Khalil v. Joyce: A Habeas Win, A Third Circuit Reversal, and the “Zipper Clause” Question
A Columbia graduate and lawful permanent resident was arrested by ICE on the basis of pro-Palestinian organizing and held in Louisiana. The District of New Jersey ordered him released on bail. The Third Circuit reversed on jurisdictional grounds, holding 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9) channeled the constitutional challenges into the petition-for-review process.
Khan Suri v. Trump: A $0 Bond, a Fourth Circuit Affirmance, and a SEVIS-Restoration Settlement
An Indian national doing postdoctoral work at Georgetown was arrested outside his home in Virginia and rendition-transferred to Texas. The Eastern District of Virginia rejected the transfer and released him on $0 bond. A divided Fourth Circuit panel denied the government’s appeal, with Judge Wilkinson dissenting. A settlement followed reinstating his SEVIS status nunc pro tunc.
Chung v. Trump: A Korean-American LPR, a Preliminary Injunction, and a National Order Against Detention
A Korean-American lawful permanent resident who had participated in Columbia pro-Palestinian protests obtained a TRO and then a preliminary injunction enjoining her arrest, detention, or interstate transfer anywhere in the country. The court required 72 hours’ notice before any non-removal-based detention.
Ozturk v. Trump: A Vermont Habeas Defeats an Interstate Transfer
A Tufts Ph.D. student and Fulbright scholar was arrested in Massachusetts after co-authoring a Tufts Daily op-ed critical of Tufts’s response to a student-government resolution. ICE moved her across multiple states to Louisiana. The District of Vermont — where she had been when habeas was filed — ordered her transferred back and released.
Mahdawi v. Trump: A Naturalization Interview Becomes a Habeas Case
A Columbia student and lawful permanent resident raised in a West Bank refugee camp was detained by ICE at his naturalization interview. The District of Vermont released him on bail two weeks later. Removal proceedings were eventually terminated by the immigration judge.
The Habeas Surge of 2025: Eight Thousand Petitions and a Ninety-Seven-Percent Win Rate
Federal § 2241 immigration habeas filings rose roughly thirty-six-fold between 2024 and 2025, from approximately 222 to approximately 8,000. The reported district-court win rate was approximately 97 percent. This essay surveys the structural causes, the doctrinal landscape, and what the surge means for habeas practice going forward.
Matter of Q. Li and Matter of Yajure Hurtado: The BIA Precedents That Triggered the Habeas Surge
Two BIA precedent decisions in 2025 reclassified long-resident EWI noncitizens as “applicants for admission” subject to mandatory § 1225(b) detention and held that immigration judges lack authority to grant them bond hearings. The decisions are not Article III rulings, but they are the doctrinal pivot that produced an estimated 8,000 federal habeas filings in 2025.
Riley v. Bondi: The Thirty-Day PFR Clock Is Not Jurisdictional
The Supreme Court held that the thirty-day deadline for filing a petition for review under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) is a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule. The decision is small in scope but consequential for the habeas docket: missed PFR deadlines no longer foreclose all judicial review.