Eliseo Jose Alejandro, who was detained at Marion County Jail by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement following his July 25, 2025 arrest on removal proceedings, had successfully won his immediate release through a preliminary injunction in October 2025. ICE officers arrested him pursuant to a warrant and initiated removal proceedings, prompting his October 5 habeas petition seeking release from custody or a bond hearing under federal immigration law.
Judge Hanlon found that Alejandro's subsequent enrollment in the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program, which requires an ankle monitor and monthly ICE reporting, did not render the case justiciable. "Mr. Jose Alejandro has received all of his requested relief," Hanlon wrote, noting that the petitioner was "released from physical custody and is subject to conditions of supervision imposed by an IJ after receiving a custody redetermination hearing."
The court rejected Alejandro's argument that his supervised release conditions violated the preliminary injunction, emphasizing that the original order specifically targeted enforcement of one statute while leaving room for another. "The Court did not enjoin Respondents from enforcing 8 U.S.C. § 1226 against him, and Mr. Jose Alejandro does not argue that he is not subject to its provisions," Judge Hanlon wrote. "In fact, he cannot, because he vigorously argues that his custody is subject only to § 1226."
The case began when ICE arrested Alejandro in July 2025 and he filed his habeas petition three months later. Judge Hanlon granted his motion for preliminary injunction on October 11, 2025, ordering immediate release and restraining respondents from detaining him under specific immigration statutes. ICE released him the same day, but later revoked his release on recognizance and imposed additional supervision conditions including electronic monitoring.
Alejandro attempted to distinguish his case from similar immigration supervision disputes by citing recent decisions where courts found ICE lacked authority to impose additional conditions after judicial release orders. However, Judge Hanlon found those cases inapplicable because "Mr. Jose Alejandro received a custody redetermination hearing before an IJ, who found the conditions appropriate," unlike the cited cases where immigration judges had set specific release terms that ICE later modified.
The ruling clarifies the scope of habeas corpus relief in immigration detention cases, with Judge Hanlon noting that challenges to supervision conditions fall outside habeas jurisdiction. "Challenges to conditions of custody may not proceed in a habeas action," the court stated, citing Seventh Circuit precedent. "To the extent that Mr. Jose Alejandro challenges discretionary conditions of supervision or other procedural actions under § 1226, the proper course of action is to pursue his administrative remedies or file a new habeas corpus action, as appropriate."
The dismissal underscores the narrow circumstances under which federal courts will continue to exercise jurisdiction over immigration habeas petitions after physical release from detention. For immigration attorneys, the decision suggests that supervised release programs may effectively moot habeas challenges even when petitioners argue that electronic monitoring and reporting requirements constitute ongoing custody.
The case also highlights procedural complexities in immigration detention law, with the government initially citing the wrong statutory authority for supervision conditions. Judge Hanlon noted that respondents "erroneously base their arguments about the authority to impose conditions of supervision" on statutes applying to final removal orders, though he found it unnecessary to address this error given the mootness finding.