Constitutional

The Eastern District ordered immediate release because a previously paroled noncitizen was entitled to a neutral hearing before re-detention.

The Eastern District ordered immediate release because a previously paroled noncitizen was entitled to a neutral hearing before re-detention.

The Eastern District required a constitutionally adequate bond hearing within seven days because an earlier hearing did not establish that proper protections were used.

The Eastern District ordered release because ICE used the wrong detention regime and did not show compliance with section 1226(a)’s protections.

A magistrate judge recommended release because delayed custody notice did not cure the lack of process before re-detention, despite voluntary departure.

The Eastern District required a merits bond hearing because expired humanitarian parole did not justify continued detention without individualized review.

The Eastern District ordered immediate release because ICE had not shown that it followed section 1226(a)’s required arrest, notice, and initial-custody procedures before confinement began.

The Eastern District held that years at liberty after a visa overstay required meaningful advance notice and a neutral hearing before ICE could re-detain the petitioner.

The court ordered two siblings released because ICE detained each without the distinct advance or contemporaneous process applicable to their circumstances.

The court found a strong likelihood that taking him from long-standing liberty into civil detention without a prior neutral hearing violated procedural due process.