Jhovani Cruz Becerril, a Mexican citizen who has lived in the United States for over four years, was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in March 2026 while providing fingerprints for minor traffic violations in Lawrence County, Missouri. He was subsequently detained at Greene County Jail while pursuing asylum protection in removal proceedings. Cruz Becerril has significant ties to the U.S., including family in Missouri, and had no prior criminal record before the traffic citations that led to his arrest.
Judge Harpool applied the Supreme Court's three-part test from Mathews v. Eldridge to determine that Cruz Becerril's detention without an individualized hearing violated due process. "Freedom from imprisonment—from government custody, detention, or other forms of physical restraint—lies at the heart of the liberty that the [Due Process] Clause protects," Harpool wrote, quoting Zadvydas v. Davis. The judge found that the government's position limiting Cruz Becerril's rights to merely receiving a Notice to Appear was "not substantially justified" and that continued detention without any hearing constituted "zero process" rather than minimal process.
The case arose after a divided Eighth Circuit panel recently agreed with the current administration's "novel interpretation" of immigration detention statutes that had previously been interpreted to provide bond hearings during removal proceedings. With that statutory avenue foreclosed, Judge Harpool analyzed the petition solely on constitutional grounds. The government had argued that Cruz Becerril should be treated as an "applicant for admission" entitled to no process beyond a Notice to Appear, relying on cases like Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam.
Judge Harpool distinguished the government's cited precedents, noting that unlike the petitioner in Thuraissigiam who was apprehended "25 yards" inside the border, Cruz Becerril had lived in the U.S. for four years. The judge also ruled that Cruz Becerril may pursue attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, finding the government's position was not substantially justified. The ruling represents a significant constitutional challenge to the administration's immigration detention practices for long-term U.S. residents.