President Donald Trump speaks alongside Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem during a roundtable about antifa in the State Dining Room at the White House Oct. 8, 2025 (Francis Chung/POLITICO via AP Images).
A federal judge in Minnesota has ordered the release of a Venezuelan man in a scathing ruling that takes a shot across the bow at ongoing immigration enforcement operations in the Land of 10,000 Lakes.
The ruling addresses the Trump administration's often-litigated efforts to reshape how Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) classifies certain immigrants in its custody.
The petitioner won habeas corpus release after quickly convincing U.S. District Judge John R. Tunheim, a Bill Clinton appointee, that he was being "unlawfully detained" in a Texas facility by ICE.
On Jan. 14, Gabriel Alejandro Hernandez Ledezma was arrested in the aftermath of an incident where an ICE agent "shot a man in the leg at a duplex in Minneapolis," the court's order explains.
After the shooting, ICE agents entered and took Hernandez Ledezma, who was granted Temporary Protected Status (TPS) in 2024, into custody. First, ICE sent him to a lockup facility in El Paso. After that, he was transferred to a different facility in San Antonio. Finally, ICE sent him to the T. Don Hutto Detention Center in Taylor – a long controversial lockup facility in the Hill Country.
"Like all Venezuelans, Petitioner's TPS status was terminated in February 2025—however, his status is 'in limbo,' because a case adjudicating the lawfulness of the termination of TPS for Venezuelan citizens is currently proceeding in federal court," Tunheim explains.
In his habeas petition, Hernandez Ledezma's attorneys said "it is currently unknown whether ICE intends to keep him at Hutto or move him to a different facility in Texas or to a different state."
The musical chairs-like nature of the man's confinement is a salient point in the court's 8-page memorandum opinion and order.
But that's because the Trump administration raised the issue – arguing the court lacked jurisdiction to even hear the case because Hernandez Ledezma was in Texas by the time his attorneys filed.
The judge sharply rejected this line of thought.
"This habeas petition arises in the context of a concerted effort by the government to arrest residents of this state and immediately transfer them to various other detention locations, for an unstated purpose and unstated duration, without notifying Petitioner's family or counsel as to where or when they may be transferred," the opinion reads. "Here, in the few weeks that Petitioner has been in detention, Respondents have unilaterally changed Petitioner's location no fewer than three times. The Court concludes that in this case, the District of Minnesota—where Petitioner resides, was arrested and detained, and was his last known permanent location—is the proper forum for Petitioner to challenge his detention as unlawful."
The court explains that this is nothing new.
"Respondents' practice of transferring detainees to various states, without notice or apparent justification, has made it a practical impossibility to promptly file a habeas petition in the District where the individual is presently located," the opinion continues.
Tunheim goes on like this, explaining how a series of recent court cases in Minnesota have swiftly created precedent:
"Government-controlled transfers," like the one in this case—often "executed within hours of detention and before communication with counsel is possible"—have been a defining characteristic of Respondents' coordinated Operation Metro Surge program in Minnesota. In some previous cases, the Court has held that even when an individual detained in Minnesota was no longer physically located here when the petition was filed, this District is still the proper venue to hear the Petition because Petitioner's location was unknown at the time of filing.
On the merits, the court offers a terse discussion of another series of recent court cases that turn on the limits of government's detention under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
The government claims ICE has the authority to subject immigrants to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. §1225(b), which applies to "aliens seeking entry into the United States."
In the other cases the court references, judges – including Tunheim – turned instead to 8 U.S.C. §1226(a), which applies to "aliens already present in the United States."
As has become a trend, the Trump administration prefers the detention authority under §1225(b) because of its indefinite nature — and has largely eschewed arguing for detention authority under §1226(a) because immigrants are subject to parole while their cases move forward under that statute.
The courts, almost entirely, have preferred §1226(a) but have split on whether a bond hearing or immediate release is best in terms of relief.
The present opinion is a terse and microcosm-like encapsulation of the debate between the Trump administration and judges on the one hand, and among judges themselves on the other hand.
"Section 1225(b)(2) does not authorize the warrantless, noticeless arrest of an individual already present in the United States," Tunheim says. "Petitioner's detention is not authorized by §1225(b)(2)."
The judge then takes stock of remedies, at length:
The Court therefore turns to the proper remedy. In some previous cases involving this issue, the Court concluded that a bond hearing pursuant to §1226(a) is the appropriate remedy. However, the Court is now persuaded that where, as here, (1) Respondents erroneously assert that a detainee is being held pursuant to §1225(b)(2); and (2) Respondents have not produced a warrant, as is required to effectuate an arrest pursuant to §1226(a), the appropriate remedy is release from custody…
"The Court will grant Gabriel A.H.L.'s petition for writ of habeas corpus and will order that he be released from custody," the opinion concludes.
Comments