Ersultan Ermekov, a citizen of Kyrgyzstan who entered the United States on or about June 20, 2023, was served with a Notice to Appear for removal proceedings and released on order of recognizance the following day. On November 19, 2025, DHS officials encountered him at a weigh station in Dallas County, Iowa, ran immigration checks, and arrested him. He was held at the Hardin County Jail. His motion for a bond and custody redetermination was denied, and he filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Judge Leonard T. Strand of the Northern District of Iowa granted the petition. The government argued that § 1225(b)(2)'s mandatory detention provision — which the Eighth Circuit in Avila v. Bondi held applies to all aliens who unlawfully entered the country, including those in the interior — foreclosed any bond hearing. Judge Strand agreed that aliens detained under § 1225(b)(2) who have gained a foothold in the United States are not constitutionally entitled to a bond hearing as a general matter, placing them in a class with enhanced but still limited due process protections.
The dispositive issue, however, was Ermekov's prior release. Judge Strand held that when the government releases an individual on bond or recognizance, it creates an implicit promise that their liberty will be revoked only if they fail to live up to the conditions of release — a principle drawn from Morrissey v. Brewer and applied in analogous district court decisions. The government offered no evidence that Ermekov had violated those conditions — aside from the minor traffic violation at the weigh station that led to his re-encounter with DHS. The court found that Ermekov appeared to be caught up in 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 without process.
The court ordered Ermekov's immediate release on the same conditions that governed him before re-detention. It further held that if the government seeks to re-detain him, it must provide sufficient notice and a hearing before an immigration judge, at which it must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Ermekov poses a flight risk or danger to the community.
The ruling creates tension with Boubacar v. Blanche, decided by a Nebraska district court on April 10, 2026, which held that while Avila does not foreclose a procedural due process claim, other Supreme Court and Eighth Circuit precedent does foreclose such a claim for aliens detained under § 1225(b)(2). Judge Strand acknowledged that the proper framework for evaluating such claims is not well-settled, noting disagreement among district courts over whether the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test or a status-and-circumstances analysis governs. He adopted the status-and-circumstances framework but noted that if Mathews were determined to be the appropriate test, he would find that Ermekov's individual circumstances would warrant a bond hearing.
The opinion also notes that Avila does not foreclose an as-applied due process challenge, citing the dissent in that case by Judge Erickson.