By Muhammed Gulen, Esq. | GH Law Firm, P.C. | Immigrant Lawyer
Immigration detention is civil, not criminal. But for the person being detained, the loss of liberty is immediate and real.
A recent case in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey shows the role federal courts can play when Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) re-detains someone it previously released. The petitioner had lived under an immigration order of supervision for more than three years before ICE took him back into custody in March 2026. In August, the court granted his habeas petition and ordered his release within 24 hours.
The case raises a basic question: once the government has decided a person can live outside detention under supervision, what must it show before taking that liberty away again?
From Removal Order to Years of Supervised Release
The petitioner entered the United States near El Paso, Texas, in July 2022 and was placed in removal proceedings. In October 2022, an immigration judge denied his applications for asylum and related protection and ordered him removed. No appeal was filed, and the order became final in November 2022.
On December 9, 2022, immigration authorities released him under an Order of Supervision. He remained in the community for more than three years. On March 28, 2026, ICE re-detained him under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) and held him at the Delaney Hall Detention Facility in Newark.
Turning to Federal Court
On April 13, 2026, counsel filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, along with a motion for a temporary restraining order and a request for expedited review. Muhammed Gulen of GH Law Firm, P.C. appeared pro hac vice together with New Jersey local counsel.
The petition relied on the statutory limits on post-removal-order detention and the Supreme Court’s decision in Zadvydas v. Davis, arguing that civil immigration detention cannot continue without adequate legal justification simply because a final removal order exists.
The court acted quickly. The same day the case was filed, it barred the government from transferring the petitioner out of New Jersey. Two days later, it ordered the government to show cause why the petition should not be granted. That mattered: detainees are often moved far from family and counsel.
The Government’s Defense
In its April 22 response, the government argued that detention remained lawful under § 1231(a)(6). It counted only the petitioner’s periods of actual custody and argued that his detention had not reached the point at which Zadvydas requires release.
The petitioner’s reply emphasized a different timeline: a removal order final since November 2022, release under supervision a month later, and more than three years in the community. Counsel argued that the government could not ignore that history and had to show a lawful basis for re-detaining someone it had already released.
Release Ordered Within 24 Hours
On August 10, 2026, the court granted the petition.
The court focused on the government’s own treatment of the petitioner, who had been released under an Order of Supervision and left at liberty for more than three years. The government did not meaningfully explain why that order no longer governed, did not identify changed circumstances justifying re-detention, and did not otherwise establish that continued custody was authorized by law.
The court ordered release within 24 hours on the same conditions that applied before the re-detention and required the government to report the time of release. It also retained jurisdiction, allowing the case to be promptly reopened if ICE detains him again.
Why This Case Matters
A final removal order does not answer every question about later detention. Habeas corpus allows a federal court to look at what happened after the order: whether the person was released, on what conditions, and what changed before the government took their liberty away again.
For the petitioner, the ruling meant freedom. For the broader immigrant community, it is a reminder that government detention authority is substantial, but it is not beyond judicial review.
Every case is different, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. This article is general information, not legal advice.
About the Author
Muhammed Gulen, Esq. is a New York-licensed attorney with GH Law Firm, P.C. (Immigrant
Lawyer), practicing immigration law and federal immigration litigation. He appeared in this District of New Jersey matter pro hac vice alongside New Jersey local counsel. Learn more at www.theghlaw.com.
