The ruling involves J.W.B.S., a noncitizen who was previously released on bond or conditional parole but was re-detained by immigration authorities on March 26, 2026. The petitioner challenged his ongoing detention at the Mesa Verde Detention Facility through a habeas corpus petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that his re-detention without a proper hearing violated his constitutional rights.
Judge Coggins granted both the petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order and his habeas corpus petition, ruling that 'the Due Process Clause requires that, in order for the government to re-detain a noncitizen who has been previously released on bond or conditional parole under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), or humanitarian parole under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5), the government must provide a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter at which the noncitizen's eligibility for bond must be considered.' The court found that the government's failure to provide such a hearing violated the petitioner's constitutional rights.
The Eastern District of California has consistently ruled in favor of similarly situated detainees in recent months. As Judge Coggins noted, the respondents 'agree that the factual and legal issues present here are not substantively distinguishable from' previous cases including Selis Tinoco, Labrador-Prato, and D.L.C., all of which resulted in orders for immediate release based on due process violations.
The case followed an expedited procedural path after the court issued an order on April 6 asking both parties whether they opposed simultaneous resolution of the temporary restraining order and habeas petition. Respondents filed their opposition on April 8, acknowledging they had no new legal arguments and could not distinguish the case from prior rulings, while indicating they 'do not oppose the Court ruling directly on the petition.' The petitioner similarly agreed to direct resolution on April 10.
The government opposed the motion on the same grounds previously rejected by the court in earlier cases, but offered no new factual or legal arguments. Judge Coggins found that 'because Respondents have not made any new legal arguments and have not identified any factual or legal issues in this case that would distinguish it from the court's aforementioned prior decisions,' the petition should be granted for the same reasons as in the Altin case.
The ruling represents part of a broader trend in the Eastern District of California, where multiple judges have found constitutional violations in the government's practice of re-detaining previously released noncitizens without proper hearings. The court's order cited at least four similar cases decided between December 2025 and February 2026, all resulting in grants of habeas relief based on due process claims.
Under the court's order, J.W.B.S. must be released immediately with the same conditions he was subject to before his March 26 detention, and the government cannot impose additional restrictions like electronic monitoring without a proper hearing. If authorities seek to re-detain him in the future, they must provide at least seven days' notice and hold a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter to consider his eligibility for bond.