Same -- Same, Up In Minneapolis: No Warrant? Habeas -- The Great Writ -- Frees The Man.

And the same very much obtains, in the vast majority of warrantless detentions, up in Minneapolis -- see last week's ruling, by the capable USDC Judge Donovan Frank, there.

Do take a look, here:

. . .A district court may provide habeas relief to a person who is being detained in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). That authority includes jurisdiction to hear habeas challenges to immigration-related detention. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001); Deng Chol A. v. Barr, 455 F. Supp. 3d 896, 900-01 (D. Minn. 2020). The burden is on the petitioner to prove illegal detention by a preponderance of the evidence. SeeMohammed H. v. Trump, 786 F. Supp. 3d 1149, 1154 (D. Minn. 2025). Respondents submitted a form response, arguing that Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), and pointing the Court to their arguments in a pending Eighth Circuit case: Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-3248. As this Court has explained on multiple occasions, Respondents’ interpretation of § 1225 contradicts the plain language of the statute. See Jose L.M.S. v. Bondi, No. 26-cv-474, 2026 WL 185066, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 25, 2026); Omar E.F.G. v. Bondi, No. 26-cv-451, 2026 WL 184571, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 23, 2026); Victor S.M. v. Noem, No. 26-cv-400, 2026 WL 161445, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 21, 2026). Section 1225 applies to “applicants for admission” -- noncitizens who are either “present in the United States who ha[ve] not been admitted or who arrive[] in the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(1). Section 1226 applies where § 1225 is inapplicable and provides immigration judges with the discretion to grant release on bond to noncitizens subject to removal proceedings. See id. § 1226(a). Here, Petitioner is not an arriving noncitizen because he has been in the United States for over three years. See Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 289 (2018) (noting that § 1226(a) applies to “certain aliens already in the country”).

Petitioner is therefore subject to the discretionary bond provisions of § 1226(a), not the mandatory bond provisions of § 1225(b)(2). Having found that Petitioner is being detained unlawfully, the question becomes the correct remedy. A detainee being held pursuant to § 1226(a), as Petitioner is here, must have been served an arrest warrant prior to detention. . . .

As this Court has explained on multiple occasions, Respondents’ interpretation of § 1225 contradicts the plain language of the statute. . . . [Habeas granted -- detainee, released forthwith.]

Damn.

नमस्ते