Reyes, a Cuban citizen who has been detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement at Baker Correctional Institute since October 25, 2025, filed a pro se habeas corpus petition challenging both his prolonged detention and ICE's revocation of his order of supervision without explanation. He was originally ordered removed in 2003 and argues he has 'a documented history of prolonged immigration detention followed by release due to the Government's inability to accomplish removal.'
Judge Platt dismissed Reyes's detention challenge as premature, finding that the Supreme Court's decision in Zadvydas v. Davis requires immigration detainees to wait at least six months before challenging their confinement as constitutionally excessive. 'The presumptively reasonable six-month period has not expired,' Platt wrote, noting that Reyes filed his petition on January 23, 2026, 'approximately two months and thirty days since the start of his current detention.'
The court rejected Reyes's argument that his previous detention around 2003-2004 should count toward the six-month threshold, warning that such an approach 'would grant a permanent get-out-of-jail-free card to Petitioner or any other detainee who has been held for more than six months at any time in the past.' Judge Platt emphasized that aggregating decades-old detention periods would be inappropriate given that the purpose of detention is 'assuring the alien's presence at the moment of removal.'
The case reflects a nationwide circuit split on when the six-month clock begins ticking for repeat immigration detainees. Some courts restart the clock with each new detention period, while others aggregate all detention time following a removal order. Judge Platt sided with the restart approach, citing recent decisions from Florida, Kansas, and New York federal courts that treat each detention period separately.
ICE argued in its response that Reyes's claim was 'not ripe for review' because he had not been detained for six months, but the agency failed to address his separate challenge to the revocation of his order of supervision. Judge Platt noted this omission and ordered federal respondents to file a supplemental response addressing 'Petitioner's due process claim regarding the revocation of his OSUP' by April 15.
The ruling leaves open Reyes's broader constitutional challenge, which could proceed if he remains detained beyond the six-month mark. Under Zadvydas, once that threshold is crossed, the burden shifts to the government to show 'a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future' if the detainee can demonstrate otherwise.
Reyes can refile his Zadvydas challenge after six months of detention, which would occur around late April 2026. The court's decision to dismiss without prejudice preserves his ability to raise the same constitutional arguments once the Supreme Court's timing requirements are satisfied.