Balwinder Singh entered the United States in March 2017, was issued a Notice to Appear, and was released on a $17,000 bond roughly a month later by an immigration judge. He complied with the bond's conditions for years, and on November 2, 2023, ICE cancelled the bond and refunded the money, citing his satisfaction of its terms. In March 2026, Singh allegedly ran an open weigh station in Dallas County, Iowa, and was stopped by an Iowa State Patrol officer. That citation brought Singh to the government's attention, which ran immigration checks and determined he was unlawfully in the United States. The government then issued an administrative warrant, instituted a new Notice to Appear, and detained him at the Hardin County Jail.
Singh filed a habeas petition arguing that his re-detention without a bond hearing violated due process. The government defended the detention as mandatory under § 1225(b)(2), relying on the Eighth Circuit's recent decision in Avila v. Bondi, which found that aliens who effected unlawful entry qualify as applicants for admission subject to that provision and have no statutory right to a bond proceeding.
Judge Leonard T. Strand of the Northern District of Iowa accepted that § 1225(b)(2) applies to Singh — a point Singh did not dispute — and found that aliens in his broader class — those who effected entry and have remained in the United States for a significant period — have no constitutional right to a bond hearing during removal proceedings. That determination tracked the logic of Demore v. Kim and the Eighth Circuit's Banyee v. Garland, which approved civil detention during removal proceedings without individualized findings.
The court drew a decisive line, however, for the subclass of aliens who were previously released on bond before being re-detained. When the government releases an individual on bond, the court reasoned, it makes an implicit promise that the individual's liberty will be revoked only if the individual fails to live up to the conditions of release. Singh had met those conditions; the government offered nothing to suggest otherwise, aside from the minor traffic violation that brought Singh to ICE's attention. The court characterized his re-detention as the product of a nationwide policy shift forcing a blanket detention scheme, and held that a change in administration cannot justify the government reneging on its past promise.
The court granted the petition and ordered Singh's immediate release under the same conditions that applied before his re-detention. It further ordered that if the government wishes to re-detain Singh pending his removal proceedings, it must provide sufficient notice and a hearing before an immigration judge, at which it must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Singh poses a flight risk or danger to the community.
The ruling does not disturb the broader mandatory-detention framework for § 1225(b)(2) aliens who have not previously been released on bond, but it carves out meaningful procedural protections for those who have.