Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Austen P. Zuege, WESTMAN, CHAMPLIN & KOEHLER, P.A., 121 South
Eighth Street, Suite 1100, Minneapolis, MN 55402, for Petitioner.
Carl Berry and David W. Fuller, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, 300
South Fourth Street, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55415 for the Federal
Respondents.
Petitioner Wilson L.L. was arrested and detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (“ICE”) on April 20, 2026. On May 4, 2026, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ
WILSON L.L.,
Petitioner,
v.
TODD 	BLANCHE, 	Acting 	U.S. 	Attorney
General;
MARKWAYNE 	MULLIN, 	Secretary, 	U.S.
Department of Homeland Security;
TODD 	M. 	LYONS, 	Acting 	Director,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
DAVID EASTERWOOD, Acting Director, St.
Paul 	Field 	Office, 	Immigration 	and
Customs Enforcement; and
ERIC 	TOLLEFSON, 	Sheriff 	of 	Kandiyohi
County,
Respondents.
Civil No. 26-2475 (JRT/EMB)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS
CASE 0:26-cv-02475-JRT-EMB Doc. 9 Filed 05/11/26 Page 1 of 6

-2-
of Habeas Corpus, arguing that his detention is unlawful under, among other things, the
Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of
the United States Constitution, Article I, § 10 of the Minnesota Constitution, and 8 U.S.C.
§ 1357(a)(2).
Because the Court concludes that Respondents did not lawfully effectuate a
warrantless arrest as required under 8 U.S.C. § 1357, the Court will grant the petition and
order Petitioner’s immediate release.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a citizen of Ecuador and a Minneapolis, Minnesota resident. (Pet. Writ
of Habeas Corpus (“Pet.”) ¶ 7, May 4, 2026, Docket No. 1.) Petitioner entered the United
States through Arizona in 2023 and “surrendered to immigration authorities for
inspection upon entry.” (Pet. ¶ 18.) He was detained until January of 2024, when he was
released from custody with a Notice to Appear in Minneapolis. (Id.) “He then traveled to
Minneapolis immediately upon release, where he has lived since then.” (Id.) Petitioner
has a pending asylum application and is not subject to a final order of removal. (Id. ¶ 19.)
Petitioner “has been told he has a hearing for his asylum case on May 11, 2026.” (Id.)
Petitioner has no criminal record, and “has one petty misdemeanor traffic citation . . . for
snow emergency parking restrictions for which he paid a $45 fine.” (Id.)
On April 20, 2026, Petitioner was a passenger in a vehicle involved in a traffic
accident in Cass County, North Dakota. (Decl. of William J. Robinson (“Robinson Decl.”),
CASE 0:26-cv-02475-JRT-EMB Doc. 9 Filed 05/11/26 Page 2 of 6

-3-
Ex. 2, May 7, 2026, Docket No. 6-2.)1 	Petitioner alleges that local police arrived at the
scene and “[a]lthough [Petitioner] was merely a passenger in a vehicle that had crashed,
had cooperated with the sheriff and had done nothing wrong, the sheriff patted down
and searched [Petitioner].” (Pet. ¶ 23.) “The [officer] found his wallet and proceeded to
check his ID,” then “detained three of the passengers, including [Petitioner].” (Id. ¶¶ 23–
24.) Petitioner was placed in the back of a police car and taken to an immigration facility,
although “[h]e was never told why he was being detained[.]” (Id. ¶ 24.) 2
Petitioner was fingerprinted at the immigration facility, and then “made to sign a
document that was in English,” which he did not understand, as he speaks and
understands only Spanish. (Id. ¶ 25.) Petitioner “was transferred to and remains confined
in the Kandiyohi County Jail in Willmar, Minnesota.” (Id. ¶ 31.)
On May 4, 2026, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, challenging
the lawfulness of his detention. 	(Docket No. 1.) 	On May 5, 2026, the Court issued an
order which, among other things, (1) enjoined Respondents from transferring Petitioner
1 Although Petitioner’s habeas petition indicated that the traffic accident took place in
Minnesota, (Pet. ¶ 22), Petitioner’s Reply memorandum clarifies that this “[m]istake . . . about
the exact location of the crash is understandable in view of the fact that he was sleeping at the
time of the rash following an approximately twelve-hour journey towards his home in
Minneapolis,” (Pet.’s Reply Mem. at 6, May 8, 2026, Docket No. 7).
2 Petitioner’s Form I-213 Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien indicates that after the
accident, Petitioner “was transported to Grand Forks, North Dakota ICE/ERO office for
processing. During processing a North Dakota Highway Patrol Trooper arrived to the ICE office
and served [Petitioner] with a citation for an open container of alcohol in the vehicle.” (Robinson
Decl., Ex. 2.)
CASE 0:26-cv-02475-JRT-EMB Doc. 9 Filed 05/11/26 Page 3 of 6

-4-
outside the District of Minnesota pending a ruling on his habeas petition or returning
Petitioner to Minnesota if he had already been removed, and (2) directed Respondents
to file an answer by May 7, 2026. (Docket No. 3.) Respondents timely filed a response
(Docket No. 5), and Petitioner replied (Docket No. 7).
DISCUSSION
Respondents argue that Petitioner’s detention is mandatory under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225(b)(2). 	However, for many of the same reasons set forth in Jefferson G.H.L. v.
Blanche, Civil No. 26-2344, 2026 WL 1229623 (D. Minn. May 5, 2026), Francisco M.A. v.
Blanche, Civil No. 26-2032, 2026 WL 1229701 (D. Minn. May 5, 2026), and other similar
cases, the Court concludes that Petitioner’s detention is unlawful.
Although Respondents contend that Petitioner’s detention is supported by
§ 1225(b)(2), “it does not follow that Petitioner can be arrested and detained pursuant to
§ 1225(b)(2) without first complying with 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a), which addresses federal
immigration officials’ authority to make warrantless arrests.” 	Francisco M.A., 2026 WL
1229701 at *2. Under § 1357(a)(2), an immigration officer may “arrest any alien in the
United States” without a warrant “if he has reason to believe that the alien . . . is in the
United States in violation of any such law or regulation and is likely to escape before a
warrant can be obtained for his arrest.” 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2) (emphasis added). After
the warrantless arrest is made, noncitizens “shall be taken without unnecessary delay for
examination before an officer of the Service . . . to examine aliens as to their right to enter
or remain in the United States.” Id. The Eighth Circuit has interpreted “the term ‘reason
CASE 0:26-cv-02475-JRT-EMB Doc. 9 Filed 05/11/26 Page 4 of 6

-5-
to believe’ in § 1357(a)(2) [to] mean[ ] constitutionally required probable cause.” United
States v. Quintana, 623 F.3d 1237, 1239 (8th Cir. 2010).
Here, “the record is void of evidence that Petitioner was likely to escape before a
valid warrant could be obtained and properly executed.” See Francisco M.A., 2026 WL
1229701 at *3.3 	Because Respondents have not shown that Petitioner was likely to
escape, they failed to comply with 8 U.S.C. § 1357—the requirement for arresting a
noncitizen without a warrant. Respondents therefore improperly arrested and detained
Petitioner under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). 4
Accordingly, Petitioner’s detention is unlawful. And as in other similar cases, the
Court concludes that the appropriate remedy is release from custody. See, e.g., Ahmed
M. v. Bondi, Civ. No. 25-4711, 2026 WL 25627, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 5, 2026); Lauro M. v.
Bondi, Civ. No. 26-134, 2026 WL 115022, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 15, 2026); cf. Munaf v. Geren,
3 	Indeed, 	Respondents’ 	memorandum 	states 	“Petitioner’s 	recent 	administrative
detention [was] lawful under 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2)” because “DHS was informed by North Dakota
law enforcement they had subjects in custody . . . that are unlawfully in the United States.”
(Resps.’ Mem. at 8, May 7, 2026, Docket No. 5.) 	This statement entirely disregards the
requirement of § 1357(a)(2) that the detainee must be “likely to escape before a warrant can be
obtained for his arrest[.]”
4 The Court further concludes that to the extent the I-200 administrative warrant
presented in this case (see Robinson Decl., Ex. 3) supports Petitioner’s detention under § 1226(a),
the warrant is invalid as it was not served on Petitioner until after his arrest and detention. See
Francisco M.A., 2026 WL 1229701 at *1–2.
CASE 0:26-cv-02475-JRT-EMB Doc. 9 Filed 05/11/26 Page 5 of 6

-6-
553 U.S. 674, 693 (2008) (“Habeas is at its core a remedy for unlawful executive
detention. . . . The typical remedy for such detention is, of course, release.”).5
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Docket No. [1]) is
GRANTED, as follows:
1. 	Respondents shall RELEASE Petitioner from custody as soon as practicable,
and no later than 48 hours from the filing of this Order.
2. 	Respondents must release Petitioner with all personal effects, such as
driver’s 	licenses, 	passports, 	or 	immigration 	documents, 	and 	without
conditions such as location tracking devices.
3. 	The parties shall provide the Court with a status update concerning the
status of Petitioner’s release by no later than 5:00 p.m. on May 13, 2026.
Further, 	the 	parties 	shall 	advise 	the 	Court 	whether 	any 	additional
proceedings in this matter are required and submit any proposals for the
scope of further litigation.
DATED: May 11, 2026
at Minneapolis, Minnesota. 	JOHN R. TUNHEIM
11:15 a.m. 	United States District Judge
5 In reaching these conclusions, the Court offers no view on Petitioner’s claims under the
United States and Minnesota Constitutions.
CASE 0:26-cv-02475-JRT-EMB Doc. 9 Filed 05/11/26 Page 6 of 6