Morales v. Hyde et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
DARWING MORALES,
Petitioner,
v.
PATRICIA HYDE,
Field Office
Director; SPECIAL AGENT MICHAEL
KROL,
HIS New England Special
Agent in Charge; and ACTING
DIRECTOR TODD LYONS,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 26-cv-093-JJM-PAS
ORDER
Darwing Morales brings this petition 1 for a writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2241. 	ECF No. 1. 	On February 12, 2026, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (“ICE”) officials arrested Mr. Morales and brought him to the Donald
W. Wyatt Detention Facility in Central Falls, Rhode Island, where he remains
detained today.
	Id. at 3, 5. 	Mr. Morales now seeks immediate release from ICE
custody or, in the alternative, a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge (“IJ”)
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
Id. at 8.
This petition is one of many to challenge ICE’s policy of subjecting thousands
of noncitizens—even those with no criminal records and who have lived in the United
1 Initially, Mr. Morales’s wife, Nicolette Rand, moved to file this petition on his
behalf as his “next friend.”
	See ECF No. 3. 	Since then, Attorney Amy Retsinas
Romero of Deluca, Weizenbaum, Barry & Revens has entered an appearance on Mr.
Morales’s behalf.
	See ECF No. 7. As such, the Court DENIES as moot Ms. Rand’s
Motion to Proceed as “Next Friend.” ECF No. 3.
Case 1:26-cv-00093-JJM-PAS Document 10 Filed 02/24/26 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
States for years and decades—to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)
without the opportunity to seek release on bond. 	The overwhelming majority of
courts have found those actions to be illegal. 2
	Barco Mercado v. Francis, No. 25-cv-
6582 (LAK), --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2025 WL 3295903, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2025)
(explaining 	that 	similarly 	situated 	petitioners 	“have 	prevailed, 	either 	on 	a
preliminary or final basis, in 350 [out of 362] cases decided by over 160 different
judges sitting in about fifty different courts spread across the United States”).
Indeed, this Court alone has ruled against ICE dozens of times in similar
habeas cases.
See, e.g.,
Casun v. Hyde, No. 25-cv-427, 2025 WL 2806769 (D.R.I. Oct.
2, 2025);
Rodriguez v. Nessinger, No. 25-cv-505-MSM-AEM, 2025 WL 3306576 (D.R.I.
Oct. 17, 2025);
Tomas Elias v. Hyde, No. 25-cv-540, 2025 WL 3004437 (D.R.I. Oct. 27,
2025);
Astudillo v. Hyde, No. 25-551, 2025 WL 3035083 (D.R.I. Oct. 30, 2025);
Tejada
Polanco v. Hyde, Nos. 25-cv-552-JJM-AEM, 25-cv-561-JJM-AEM, 2025 WL 3033926
(D.R.I. Oct. 30, 2025);
Herrera Martinez v. Hyde, No. 25-cv-575-JJM-AEM, 2025 WL
3124025 (D.R.I. Nov. 7, 2025);
Barrera Rodriguez v. Hyde, No. 25-cv-607-JJM-PAS,
2025 WL 3274606 (D.R.I. Nov. 25, 2025);
Mendes v. Hyde, No. 25-cv-627-JJM-AEM,
2025 WL 3496546 (D.R.I. Dec. 5, 2025).3
2 The Court is aware of the Fifth Circuit’s recent ruling to the contrary.
	See
Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, No. 25-20496, ––– F.4th ––––, 2026 WL 323330, at *5
(5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026). 	However, that ruling is not binding on this Court, nor does
this Court find its reasoning to be persuasive.
3 This of course includes the many cases that have been resolved in the
noncitizen detainees’ favor pursuant to text orders issued by the Court.
	See, e.g.,
Geronimo Da Silva v. Nessinger, No. 25-cv-625-JJM-AEM (D.R.I. Dec. 10, 2025);
Lopez-Lopera v. Nessinger, No. 25-cv-650-JJM-PAS (D.R.I. Dec. 10, 2025);
Marciano
v. Moniz, No. 25-cv-654-JJM-PAS (D.R.I. Dec. 10, 2025);
Perez-Aguilar v. Nessinger,
Case 1:26-cv-00093-JJM-PAS Document 10 Filed 02/24/26 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Undeterred, “ICE continues to act contrary to law, to spend taxpayer money
needlessly, and to waste the scarce resources of the judiciary.”
Lopes v. Jamison, No.
26-234, 2026 WL 299991, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 4, 2026);
see also Velasco Lopez v.
Decker, 978 F.3d 842, 854 n.11 (2d Cir. 2020) (“Detention [of noncitizens] costs
taxpayers approximately $134 per person, per day, according to ICE's estimates.”
(citing Dep’t of Homeland Sec., U.S. Immigr. & Customs Enf’t Budget Overview 14
(2018)).
Charged with defending ICE’s actions in court, the Government no longer
argues that the countless rulings in favor of noncitizen detainees are incorrect.
Instead, the Government acknowledges, as it does here, that should courts “apply the
reasoning” of these past rulings, they “would likely reach the same result.” ECF No.
8 at 1-2 (citing
Martins De Oliveira v. Hyde, No. 25-13940-FDS, 2026 WL 74111 (D.
Mass. Jan. 9, 2026);
Tomas Elias, 2025 WL 3004437). 	In other words, without
objection from the Government, courts can continue to find ICE’s actions to be illegal
and grant the noncitizen detainees’ habeas petitions. 4 	Finding that the reasoning
provided in
Martins De Oliveira and
Tomas Elias remains correct, the Court holds
that Mr. Morales’s continued detention is illegal and that he is entitled to immediate
No. 26-cv-028-JJM-PAS (D.R.I. Jan. 21, 2026);
Pinto v. Hyde, No. 26-cv-086-JJM-PAS
(D.R.I. Feb. 18, 2026);
Peixoto Lima Siqueira v. Wesling, No. 26-cv-096-JJM-AEM
(D.R.I. Feb. 18, 2026).
4 The Government does note, however, that it “reserve[s] all rights to appeal
and incorporate[s] by reference the legal arguments presented” in other habeas cases.
ECF No. 8 at 1 (citing
Martins De Oliveira v. Hyde, No. 25-13940-FDS, 2026 WL
74111 (D. Mass. Jan. 9, 2026);
Tomas Elias v. Hyde, No. 25-cv-540-JJM-AEM, 2025
WL 3004437 (D.R.I. Oct. 27, 2025)).
Case 1:26-cv-00093-JJM-PAS Document 10 Filed 02/24/26 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
release and to a bond hearing before an IJ.
	See Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th
19, 41 (1st Cir. 2021).
The Government has also recognized that Mr. Morales is part of the class
recently certified by Judge Patti B. Saris of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.
	See Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz, No. 25-cv-12664-PBS, --- F. Supp.
3d ----, 2025 WL 3687757 (D. Mass. Dec. 19, 2025). This class is composed of:
All people who are arrested or detained in Massachusetts, or are
detained in a geographical area over which, as of September 22, 2025,
an Immigration Court located in Massachusetts is the administrative
control court, or who are otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of an
Immigration Court located in Massachusetts, where:
(a) 	the person is not in any Expedited Removal process under 8
U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1), does not have an Expedited Removal order
under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1), and is not currently in proceedings
before an immigration judge due to having been found to have a
credible fear of persecution under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii);
(b) 	for the person's most recent entry into the United States, the
government has not alleged that the person was admitted into the
United States and has not alleged that person was paroled into
the United States pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A) at the time
of entry or after continuous detention upon arrival;
(c) 	the person does not meet the criteria for mandatory detention
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c);
(d) 	the person is not subject to post-final order detention under 8
U.S.C. § 1231; and
(e) 	the person is not a person whose most recent arrest occurred at
the border while they were arriving in the United States and has
been continuously detained thereafter.
Id. at 10. 	In addition, as an individual who entered the United States without
inspection, who was not apprehended upon arrival, and who is not subject to
detention under § 1226(c), § 1225(b)(1), or § 1231, Mr. Morales is correct in noting
Case 1:26-cv-00093-JJM-PAS Document 10 Filed 02/24/26 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
that he is also a member of the “Bond Eligible Class” certified by Judge Sunshine S.
Sykes of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. ECF No. 9 at
2;
see Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 5:25-cv-01873-SSS-BFM, --- F. Supp. 3d
----, 2025 WL 3713987, at *32 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025) (certifying a “Bond Eligible
Class” and entering final judgment in the class’s favor).5
For all these reasons, the Court GRANTS Mr. Morales’s Petition. ECF No. 1.
The Government is hereby ORDERED: (1) to provide Darwing Morales with a bond
hearing before an IJ under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within seven (7) days of the date of this
order; (2) to release Darwing Morales immediately pending the bond hearing 6 ; and
(3) to file a status report within five days of Mr. Morales’s bond hearing, stating
whether he has been granted bond and, if his request for bond was denied, the reason
for that denial.
5 The Bond Eligible Class specifically consists of:
All noncitizens in the United States without lawful status who (1) have
entered or will enter the United States without inspection; (2) were not
or will not be apprehended upon arrival; and (3) are not or will not be
subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), § 1225(b)(1), or § 1231 at
the time the Department of Homeland Security makes an initial custody
determination.
Bautista, 2025 WL 3713987, at *32.
6 In light of Winter Storm Hernando and the travel ban recently issued by
Rhode Island Governor Dan McKee,
see Press Release, State of Rhode Island,
Governor McKee Declares State of Emergency, Issues Travel Ban Ahead of Blizzard
Conditions (Feb. 22, 2026), https://governor.ri.gov/press-releases/governor-mckee-
declares-state-emergency-issues-travel-ban-ahead-blizzard-conditions, 	the 	Court
GRANTS Mr. Morales’s request that he be given the opportunity to contact his family
from the Wyatt Detention Facility to determine if it would be safer for them to pick
him up in Central Falls, Rhode Island, or from ICE’s Field Office in Burlington,
Massachusetts. ECF No. 9 at 3 n.1.
Case 1:26-cv-00093-JJM-PAS Document 10 Filed 02/24/26 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
There remains a dispute over whether Mr. Morales will be subject to any
monitoring conditions. 	The Government has requested permission to transfer Mr.
Morales to ICE’s Field Office in Burlington, Massachusetts for the “placement of any
monitoring equipment deemed appropriate.” 	ECF No. 8 at 1 n.2. 	By contrast, Mr.
Morales 	contends 	that 	“monitoring 	equipment 	imposed 	by 	ICE, 	and 	not 	an
Immigration Judge, would be unlawful detention” and thus inappropriate. ECF No.
9 at 3 n.1.
The Court agrees with Mr. Morales. The Court has determined that ICE does
not have the power to detain Mr. Morales under the legal authority that it claims: 8
U.S.C. § 1225(b). In its briefing, the Government does not claim that Mr. Morales’s
detention is grounded in any other provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(“INA”).
	See 	Hechavarria 	v. 	Sessions, 	891 	F.3d 	49, 	54 	(2d 	Cir. 	2018) 	(“The
government’s power to detain an immigrant must be grounded in a specific provision
of the INA.”). The Government nevertheless seeks to impose monitoring equipment
on Mr. Morales.
However, 	as 	various 	courts 	within 	the 	First 	Circuit 	have 	pointed 	out,
noncitizens remain “in custody” for the purposes of habeas corpus when they are
subject to monitoring equipment.
	See, e.g.,
Orellana Juarez v. Moniz, 788 F. Supp.
3d 61, 67-68 (D. Mass. 2025);
Flores Salazar v. Moniz, No. 25-11159-LTS, 2025 WL
1703516, at *5-7 (D. Mass. June 11, 2025);
see also Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S.
236, 239 (1963) (“[I]n the United States the use of habeas corpus has not been
restricted to situations in which the applicant is in actual, physical custody.”).
Case 1:26-cv-00093-JJM-PAS Document 10 Filed 02/24/26 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
Of course, the Court has already ordered that ICE must immediately release
Mr. Morales from custody. It does not follow then that ICE gets to keep Mr. Morales
“in custody” once he leaves the Wyatt Detention Facility. In other words, even though
he would no longer be in ICE detention, ICE cannot continue to keep Mr. Morales in
custody through the use of monitoring equipment if the agency did not have the
authority to lawfully detain Mr. Morales in the first place. 	Accordingly, the Court
will DENY the Government’s request to place “any monitoring equipment deemed
appropriate.” ECF No. 8 at 1 n.2.
Finally, there remains the question of the return of Mr. Morales’s property.
The Court takes judicial notice of an article from
The New Bedford Light, which
describes how ICE officers carried out Mr. Morales’s arrest.
	See Kevin G. Andrade,
ICE Detains New Bedford Worker, Leaving U.S. Citizen Wife to Care for Disabled
Family 	Members, 	The 	New 	Bedford 	Light 	(Feb. 	13, 	2026),
https://newbedfordlight.org/ice-detains-new-bedford-worker-leaving-u-s-citizen-wife-
to-care-for-disabled-family-members.
The article explains that, when ICE arrested Mr. Morales in New Bedford on
February 12, 2026, officers took him from his black Mazda SUV and left the vehicle
on the road, “partially obstructing traffic near the intersection of Covell Street and
Belleville Avenue.”
	Id. 	The vehicle was left there for days and, according to Ms.
Rand, Mr. Morales’s wife, “ICE still has the keys to their only vehicle, and told her to
pick them up in Burlington.”
	Id. 	However, “without a license and no means to
undertake the 75-mile drive,” Ms. Rand has no way of picking up the keys.
Id.
Case 1:26-cv-00093-JJM-PAS Document 10 Filed 02/24/26 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
The Government’s actions are unlawful and inappropriate. Indeed, requiring
Ms. Rand to travel 75 miles to collect the keys to the couple’s vehicle only serves to
reward the Government’s lawless behavior. As one court so aptly put it, “[t]his is not
what civil enforcement looks like in a humane system of government under law.”
Aroca v. Mason, No. 2:26-CV-00057, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2026 WL 357872, at *1 (S.D.
W. 	Va. 	Feb. 	9, 	2026). 	Therefore, 	the 	Government 	is 	further 	ORDERED 	to
immediately facilitate the return of Mr. Morales’s property, including the keys to his
black Mazda SUV. 	As part of the status report to be submitted to the Court, the
Government shall inform the Court how it seeks to accomplish this return of property.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/John J. McConnell, Jr.
_________________________________
John J. McConnell, Jr.
Chief United States District Judge
February 24, 2026
Case 1:26-cv-00093-JJM-PAS Document 10 Filed 02/24/26 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>