Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION
D.Y.E.H., 	:
:
Petitioner, 	:
:
v. 	: 	CASE NO.: 7:25-CV-201 (WLS-AGH)
:
Warden, IRWIN DETENTION 	:
CENTER, et al., 	:
:
Respondents. 	:
:
ORDER
Before the Court is Petitioner’s Emergency Motion to Enforce Judgment and to Show
Cause re: Contempt (“Motion”) (Doc. 12), filed on February 16, 2026. Therein, Petitioner
moves the Court to enforce is previous Order (Doc. 10) which granted Petitioner’s Habeas
Petition (Doc. 1) to the extent the Court ordered Respondents to provide Petitioner with a
bond hearing. Petitioner contends that Respondents violated the Court’s Order by failing to
provide Petitioner with a “constitutionally valid” bond hearing. (Doc. 12 at 1). Petitioner seeks
a contempt finding and release from detention, as well as a hearing on his Motion. (See id.)
Upon review, the Court finds that supplemental briefing on the issues raised in
Petitioner’s Motion is necessary. Specifically, on the issue of whether the Court has jurisdiction
to review the discretionary decision of an immigration judge in light of § 1226(e)’s ban on
judicial review of such decisions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e) (“The Attorney General's discretionary
judgment regarding the application of this section shall not be subject to review. No court may
set aside any action or decision by the Attorney General under this section regarding the
detention of any alien or the revocation or denial of bond or parole.”). The Court notes that
it is aware of motions filed in other cases within the Middle District which raise similar issues
to those raised in Petitioner’s Motion. The Court finds supplemental briefing appropriate here
to facilitate the Court’s consideration and adjudication of the Motion and the issues raised
therein.
Case 7:25-cv-00201-WLS-AGH Document 13 Filed 03/03/26 Page 1 of 2

2
Accordingly, the Parties are ORDERED to each submit a supplemental brief, with
citation to proper authority, addressing the issues described above within fourteen (14) days
of the entry of this Order, or by no later than Tuesday, March 17, 2026.1 The briefs shall
be no longer than ten (10) pages, excluding signature pages and service certification. No reply
or further briefing is authorized except if authorized by further Order. Upon review of the
Parties’ submissions, the Court will determine whether a hearing on Petitioner’s Motion is
necessary, and if so, a hearing will be scheduled by separate notice or Order.
SO ORDERED, this 3rd day of March 2026.
/s/ W. Louis Sands
W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1 The Court notes that, as of the entry of this Order, Respondents have not filed a response to Petitioner’s
Motion. Their deadline to respond is Monday, March 9, 2026. See M.D. Ga. L.R. 7.2. As such, Respondents
may incorporate their arguments on the issues set forth in this Order into a single response brief, not to exceed
thirty (30) pages, or they may file a response to the Motion and a separate supplemental brief addressing the
jurisdictional issue, if they choose to do so.
Case 7:25-cv-00201-WLS-AGH Document 13 Filed 03/03/26 Page 2 of 2