Garcia Ortiz v. Bondi et al

ORDER - 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
RIGOBERTO GARCIA ORTIZ,
Petitioner,
v.
BRIAN HENKEY, Field Office Director
of Enforcement and Removal Operations,
Salt Lake City Field Office, Immigration
and Customs Enforcement; KENNETH
PORTER, Acting Director of the Boise
U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement Field Sub-Office; KRISTI
NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; PAMELA BONDI,
U.S. Attorney General; MICHAEL
HOLLINGSHEAD, Sheriff of Elmore
County,
Respondents.
Case No. 1:26-cv-00043-BLW
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER
INTRODUCTION
Before the Court is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Petitioner
Rigoberto Garcia Ortiz (Dkt. 1). For the reasons described below, the Court grants
the Petition. Respondents must either release Petitioner or provide him with a bond
hearing within seven days.
Case 1:26-cv-00043-BLW Document 11 Filed 02/04/26 Page 1 of 5

BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a national of Mexico who has lived in the United States since
2020 and currently resides in Caldwell, Idaho. Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 18, 24. He has two U.S.
citizen children. Id. ¶ 26. He was taken into custody on January 22, 2026, while
attending a sentencing hearing for a misdemeanor charge of driving under the
influence. Id. ¶¶ 1, 28. Respondents are now detaining him at the Elmore County
Detention Center in Mountain Home, Idaho. Id. ¶¶ 1, 17. He filed a Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus on January 25, 2026.
LEGAL STANDARD
The Constitution guarantees that the writ of habeas corpus is “available to
every individual detained within the United States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S.
507, 525 (2004) (citing U.S. Const., Art. I, § 9, cl. 2). Throughout our nation’s
history, habeas review “has remained a critical check on the Executive, ensuring
that it does not detain individuals except in accordance with law.” Id. (quotation
omitted).
ANALYSIS
This Petition presents a statutory issue resolved by this Court dozens of
times in the last several months. The deluge of cases stems from a policy shift by
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Executive Office of Immigration
Review (EOIR) regarding the application of 8 U.S.C. § 1225, which mandates the
ORDER - 2
Case 1:26-cv-00043-BLW Document 11 Filed 02/04/26 Page 2 of 5

ORDER - 3
detention of a limited class of immigrant detainees without the chance for a bond
hearing. See Moctezuma Macias v. Henkey, No. 1:25-cv-00741, 2026 WL 221450,
at *1-2 (D. Idaho Jan. 27, 2026); see also, e.g., Cordero Esparza v, Knight, 1:25-
cv-00601-BLW, 2025 WL 3228282 (D. Idaho Nov. 19, 2025).
There is no need to reanalyze the question. As the Court explained recently:
Historically, noncitizens potentially subject to immigration
detention could be detained under two possible statutes. Section 1225
applied to noncitizens “seeking admission into the country”— those
apprehended at or near the border—and did not allow for a bond
hearing. But noncitizens already established in the United States were
detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226, which provides for discretionary
detention with bond hearings to allow the release of detainees who do
not pose a danger to the community or flight risk. See Hernandez v.
Sessions, 872 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2017). This statutory scheme reflects
a longstanding distinction between noncitizens who reside in the
United States and those who have not yet entered. See Zadvydas v.
Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001).
In July 2025, DHS attempted to eliminate this distinction. On
July 8, 2025, ICE issued “Interim Guidance Regarding Detention
Authority for Applicants for Admission,” instructing that all persons
who entered without inspection be subject to mandatory detention
under § 1225(b)(2)(A), regardless of when they were apprehended or
how long they have resided in the United States. On September 5,
2025, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) issued a precedential
decision in Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216 (BIA
2025), holding that immigration judges lack authority to conduct bond
hearings for individuals who entered without admission, as they are
deemed “applicants for admission” subject to mandatory detention
under § 1225(b)(2)(A). Since then, district courts across the country
have found that this interpretation violates the Immigration and
Nationality Act and the constitutional due process rights of detained
immigrants. Alvarez Ortiz v. Freden, No. 25-CV-960, 2025 WL
3085032, at *10 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 2025); Guerrero Orellana v.
Moniz, No. 25-cv-12664, 2025 WL 2809996 (D. Mass. Oct. 3, 2025).
Case 1:26-cv-00043-BLW Document 11 Filed 02/04/26 Page 3 of 5

ORDER - 4
This Court has considered many substantively identical habeas
petitions in recent months and has repeatedly rejected Respondents’
reading of § 1225. Respondents have not offered any new arguments
here, and there is no need here to restate the Court’s reasoning, which
is laid out at length in cases such as Quijada Cordoba v. Knight, 1:25-
cv-00605, 2025 WL 3228945 (D. Idaho Nov. 19, 2025). The Court
again finds that Petitioner’s mandatory detention under § 1225 is
unlawful.
Moctezuma Macias, 2026 WL 221450, at *1.
This Court’s previous cases definitively answer the legal question. The
question of remedy, however, is slightly more complex here. Petitioner was
recently convicted of driving under the influence, and his ties to the United States
are not that strong compared to other detainees who have recently filed similar
petitions. Under these circumstances, the Court cannot say with certainty that
release is the appropriate remedy. Accordingly, Respondents may either release
Petitioner or provide him with a bond hearing within seven days.
The Court shares Petitioner’s concern and frustration with the two-step
process that this creates for certain immigrant detainees due to Respondents’
intransigence regarding the statutory issue. The need to go through the habeas
process prior to a bond hearing significantly lengthens the period of potentially
unjustified detention, and the Court recognizes the substantial injury that this
inflicts. At the same time, the Court cannot discount the potential public safety risk
given Petitioner’s recent criminal history, and the Court lacks the information
needed to assess the propriety of detention. Hopefully the Ninth Circuit will
Case 1:26-cv-00043-BLW Document 11 Filed 02/04/26 Page 4 of 5

ORDER - 5
resolve this matter soon, but until then this Court can only administer this
imperfect form of justice.
ORDER
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
1. Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. 1) is GRANTED.
Respondents must either release Petitioner or provide him with an
individualized bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226 within seven days
of the date of this Order.
2. Respondents shall file a Status Report within twelve days of the date of this
Order confirming compliance with this Order. The status report shall detail
if and when the ordered bond hearing occurred, if bond was granted or
denied, and if denied, the reason for that denial.
3. Petitioner’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. 2) is DENIED
AS MOOT.
DATED: February 4, 2026
_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
U.S. District Court Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00043-BLW Document 11 Filed 02/04/26 Page 5 of 5