Daniel J. F., a non-citizen who has lived in the United States for five years with his two children ages two and five, was stopped by local police on March 23 while driving lawfully, with ICE officers arriving within five minutes to detain him. The petitioner, who has no criminal history and is the primary financial provider for his family, alleges officers provided no reason for the traffic stop and issued no citation, yet he has remained in immigration detention for nearly a month without any bond or custody hearing.
Judge Nunley found that immigration authorities violated the Immigration and Nationality Act by applying the wrong detention statute to the petitioner. 'For these reasons and consistent with this Court's numerous prior rulings, the Court finds Petitioner is not an applicant for admission subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2),' Nunley wrote. 'Rather, Petitioner's detention is governed by § 1226(a) and he is entitled to the process required by that provision including a bond hearing, at minimum.'
The court delivered sharp criticism of the government's detention practices, noting that 'there is no evidence in the record that Respondents had a valid warrant for Petitioner's arrest.' As Nunley explained, 'absent a warrant a noncitizen may not be arrested and detained under section 1226(a),' calling the issuance of a warrant 'a necessary condition to justify discretionary detention.'
The case arose after the Department of Homeland Security changed its detention policy in July 2025, leading to increased use of mandatory detention provisions that courts across the Eastern District of California have repeatedly rejected. Judge Nunley noted that 'Respondents recognize that the majority of judges in the Eastern District of California have accepted Petitioner's arguments' regarding detention authority, and criticized the government's interpretation as one that 'disregards the plain meaning' of the statute and 'is inconsistent with decades of prior statutory interpretation and practice.'
The government argued the petitioner was subject to mandatory detention and had no right to freedom, but Judge Nunley rejected those contentions after finding the petitioner had a substantial liberty interest strengthened by his five-year residence, family ties, and employment. 'Even if he is removable, or his liberty is revocable, his liberty is still protected by due process,' the judge wrote, emphasizing that the petitioner 'has established a life here with a family including two young minor children, one of whom is a U.S. citizen.'
Applying the three-factor test from Mathews v. Eldridge, the court found the government's interest in detention was 'low' while the risk of erroneous deprivation was 'considerable' given the petitioner received no process either before or after his arrest. 'Without any showing of a legitimate interest to detain Petitioner, the Court finds there is a serious likelihood Petitioner was erroneously deprived of his liberty interest,' Nunley wrote, noting that providing notice and custody hearings would impose minimal administrative burden on the government.
The court's order includes an injunction preventing authorities from re-detaining the petitioner without constitutional protections, requiring seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral fact-finder. The ruling represents the latest in a string of similar decisions across the district challenging the government's expanded use of mandatory detention for individuals with established ties to U.S. communities, potentially affecting hundreds of similar cases pending across federal courts.