Jesus Enrique Soto Hernandez, a 26-year-old Venezuelan national, has been living in the United States since August 2022 after being granted parole by immigration authorities upon his entry. He applied for asylum promptly, maintained an active asylum claim, complied with all immigration requirements, and has no criminal history. On March 4, 2026, he was arrested while living in Chicago and transferred to ICE custody in Springfield, Missouri, where he has been detained without any opportunity to seek release before a neutral decisionmaker.
Judge Harpool concluded that the government's position—that issuing a Notice to Appear satisfied all due process requirements—was constitutionally deficient under the Supreme Court's framework in Mathews v. Eldridge. "This is not minimal process. It is zero process," Harpool wrote. "Respondents' position, that no such process is required, cannot be reconciled with the Fifth Amendment." The court found that Soto Hernandez's "most elemental of liberty interests—the interest in being free from physical detention" required more than the government provided.
The judge delivered pointed criticism of the government's legal theory, writing: "The issue here is whether the United States can suddenly and indefinitely detain a four-year resident who was present after a grant of parole with zero review or oversight." Harpool emphasized that "every day that passes under this unlawful detention is a day that cannot be recovered," as Soto Hernandez "is unable to return to his family and the life he has created over the last four years."
The case arose after a change in federal immigration policy under a new presidential administration that adopted what Harpool called "a novel interpretation" of statutory provisions that "for the past 29 years and five presidential administrations" had been understood to entitle detainees to bond hearings. A divided 8th Circuit panel recently endorsed the administration's interpretation in a decision still subject to potential rehearing or appeal, leaving Harpool to analyze the petition solely on constitutional grounds.
The government argued that Soto Hernandez should be treated as an "applicant for admission" under federal immigration law, making him subject to indefinite detention without hearings. Officials relied heavily on Supreme Court precedents in Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam and Demore v. Kim, but Harpool distinguished both cases. He noted that the petitioner in Thuraissigiam "was apprehended '25 yards' inside the United States, effectively at the border," while "Mr. Soto-Hernandez has lived in the United States for four years pursuant to grant of parole." Similarly, Demore involved "detention during removal proceedings for a limited class of deportable aliens" with serious criminal records, unlike Soto Hernandez who has no criminal history.
Applying the three-part Mathews test for procedural due process, Harpool found all factors weighed in favor of the petitioner. He noted that "without an individualized hearing, there is substantial risk that noncitizens with a substantial presence in the United States who pose neither flight risk nor danger to the community will be detained," citing a recent Texas federal court ruling in a similar case. The court found "nothing in the record shows Petitioner poses a danger or flight risk" and that "the Government's interest in detaining Petitioner without Due Process is minimal."
Rather than ordering a bond hearing, Harpool ordered immediate release, finding that immigration courts lack jurisdiction to conduct such hearings under current agency interpretations and that "DHS provides no alternative mechanism for individualized custody review." The judge also indicated that Soto Hernandez may pursue attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, finding that "the position of the United States is not substantially justified."
The ruling comes amid broader legal challenges to the administration's immigration detention policies and represents a significant victory for immigrant rights advocates arguing that prolonged detention without hearings violates constitutional protections. The decision may influence similar pending cases involving asylum seekers who have been living in the U.S. under parole but face indefinite detention under the new policy interpretation.