Background
Guerdy Jules, a noncitizen from Haiti, petitioned the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California for a writ of habeas corpus. He alleged that the government violated the Fifth Amendment by arbitrarily detaining him without notice and an opportunity to be heard. According to the order, Jules entered the United States on August 27, 2022, received humanitarian parole, and was arrested on August 18, 2026 without notice of the reasons for revocation of his parole.
The government acknowledged that Jules had been released on parole and that the court had granted petitions involving similar facts and legal issues. It did not oppose the petition and deferred to the court regarding appropriate relief. Government counsel also reported that the Department of Homeland Security had stated that Jules had no criminal history or other derogatory information that would make him a danger to the community.
The petition named multiple respondents, including the Secretary of Homeland Security, the warden of the Imperial Regional Detention Center, the San Diego Field Office Director for ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations, the Acting Director of ICE, the Attorney General, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Department of Homeland Security. The court's order addressed the petition as a whole and granted relief on the first claim without reaching the remaining counts.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the petition in part on Jules's due-process claim. It adopted its earlier reasoning in Tulyakov v. LaRose and applied the Mathews v. Eldridge factors, concluding that Jules's liberty interest and the procedural protections due that interest outweighed the government's enforcement interest. The court also noted that the government did not identify changed circumstances warranting redetention and did not contend that Jules presented a danger to the community or a flight risk.
The court issued the writ and directed the government to release Jules immediately from custody on any preexisting conditions. If the government seeks to revoke his parole in the future, it must provide a written revocation notice from a statutorily authorized official stating individualized grounds for termination and must allow Jules an opportunity to rebut the revocation. The government must also provide reporting instructions.
The parties were ordered to file a joint statement concerning satisfaction of the writ by October 26, 2026 at 5 p.m., and the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the writ. Because relief was granted on the first claim, the court did not reach the merits of Jules's other claims and dismissed Counts Two through Five without prejudice. The order also established a schedule for any motion for fees: Jules may move within thirty days, the government must respond within fourteen days after the motion is filed, and Jules may reply within seven days after the opposition is filed.
Key Takeaways
- The court granted habeas relief in part because Jules's liberty interest and required procedural protections outweighed the government's enforcement interest under the Mathews v. Eldridge analysis.
- The government's lack of opposition and its failure to assert changed circumstances, dangerousness, or flight risk supported the court's decision.
- Jules must be released immediately on any preexisting conditions rather than left in custody while the government considers further parole action.
- Any future parole revocation must include written, individualized grounds from an authorized official and an opportunity for Jules to rebut the revocation.
- The remaining four counts were dismissed without prejudice without a merits ruling, and the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the writ.
Why It Matters
The order provides concrete procedural protection for a parolee facing redetention: immediate release on the existing conditions, followed by individualized written notice and an opportunity to respond if the government later attempts revocation. It ties that relief to due-process balancing and the governing parole statutes and regulations rather than treating the government's nonopposition alone as the basis for decision.
The ruling also defines what remains unresolved. The court decided only the first claim, expressly declined to reach the merits of the other claims, and left open the possibility of a fee motion under the stated briefing schedule. Its retained jurisdiction and short deadline for a joint statement provide a mechanism to confirm compliance with the writ.
Read the full opinion (PDF) · Court docket