Habeas and bond

How people in immigration detention are challenging it in federal court, what courts are doing, and how the government responds. 1,002 well-documented cases, 57% of them known only from the court docket.

How to read this page

Each case was read and coded for the latest ruling the story reports, the grounds it was brought on, the government's conduct, and the detention statute in dispute. “Court sided with the petitioner” covers release orders, bond-hearing orders, and restraining orders; most are early-stage orders, not final judgments.

Docket-only cases are anonymized and their location is often the detention facility, not where the person lives. CourtListener coverage grew from late 2025, so everything here is shown as a share of cases, never a count over time. Only states and courts with enough cases appear.

What courts did

Latest reported ruling in each case.

Court sided with the petitioner
Denied
Ended without a ruling (deported, moved, released)
Pending or not reported

Release ordered52%
Bond hearing ordered12%
TRO or stay granted13%
Denied9%
Moot: deported3%
Moot or dismissed: transferred0%
Moot: released2%
Pending8%
Unknown1%

Among cases with a merits ruling, courts sided with the petitioner in 90%. People had typically been held 2 days when they filed, and rulings came a median 8 days after filing. Bond-hearing deadlines were most often 7 days or 14 days.

By state

Where the person was held when the case was filed. Each bar is that state's cases; the note is the most common ground there.

California · 257 casesRe-detained after release or at a check-in
Texas · 85 casesHeld without a bond hearing
Florida · 47 casesHeld without a bond hearing
New York · 44 casesUnlawful arrest
Pennsylvania · 35 casesHeld without a bond hearing
Louisiana · 26 casesNo notice or hearing
Colorado · 25 casesHeld without a bond hearing
Minnesota · 25 casesUnlawful arrest
Massachusetts · 24 casesTransfer away from the court
Tennessee · 20 casesHeld without a bond hearing
Washington · 17 casesConditions or medical need
Maryland · 15 casesFamily or caregiver hardship

Court sided with the petitioner
Denied
Ended without a ruling (deported, moved, released)
Pending or not reported

By court

Federal districts named in the stories.

C.D. Cal. · 35 cases91% of rulings for the petitioner
N.D. Cal. · 32 cases100% of rulings for the petitioner
E.D. Cal. · 30 cases100% of rulings for the petitioner
D. Minn. · 23 cases90% of rulings for the petitioner
S.D. Tex. · 22 cases86% of rulings for the petitioner
D. Colo. · 19 cases100% of rulings for the petitioner
W.D. Tex. · 18 cases86% of rulings for the petitioner
D. Mass. · 16 cases92% of rulings for the petitioner
S.D. Cal. · 14 cases93% of rulings for the petitioner
D. Md. · 12 cases100% of rulings for the petitioner

Court sided with the petitioner
Denied
Ended without a ruling (deported, moved, released)
Pending or not reported

How cases resolved, month by month

Share of each month's cases by how the court responded. Recent months hold more pending cases by nature.

What the cases were about, month by month

Share of each month's cases raising each ground. A case can raise several.

Why courts granted relief

The court's stated basis, among the 771 cases where it sided with the petitioner; a ruling can rest on more than one. The reasoning is reported in 73% of them.

Re-detention without a hearing violated due process31%
The court held that taking a previously released person back into custody without notice and a hearing, or without a new finding of flight risk or danger, violated due process.
No individualized determination28%
The court found no individualized finding of flight risk or danger supporting the detention.
Basis not stated27%
The story reports the ruling but not the court's reasoning.
§1226(a) governs: a bond hearing is owed16%
The court rejected the government's position that the person is an applicant for admission with no bond eligibility under §1225(b), holding that §1226(a) applies and a bond hearing is required.
Government did not justify the detention15%
The government failed to respond, to carry its burden, or to offer a lawful basis for custody.
Likely to succeed, irreparable harm8%
A TRO or injunction standard: the petitioner showed likely success on the merits and irreparable harm from detention or removal.
The arrest itself was unlawful7%
The court found the arrest lacked a warrant, probable cause, or consent, or violated a policy or statute.
Detention too long without review6%
The court held that the length of detention without an individualized hearing had become unreasonable.
Removal would violate protection or a pending claim4%
The court barred removal because it would violate withholding, CAT, asylum, a stay, or a pending claim or appeal.
Conditions or medical need4%
The court cited medical vulnerability or detention conditions as the basis for release.
Transfer unlawful, or jurisdiction retained3%
The court kept jurisdiction despite a transfer, ordered the person returned, or held the transfer violated an order.
Class or policy relief1%
Relief granted to a class or against a policy rather than on one person's facts.

Leading basis by state

CaliforniaRe-detention without a hearing violated due process (59% of 190 reasoned grants)
TexasNo individualized determination (50% of 28 reasoned grants)
FloridaNo individualized determination (35% of 23 reasoned grants)
New YorkGovernment did not justify the detention (40% of 15 reasoned grants)
Pennsylvania§1226(a) governs: a bond hearing is owed (88% of 24 reasoned grants)
LouisianaGovernment did not justify the detention (57% of 7 reasoned grants)
Colorado§1226(a) governs: a bond hearing is owed (57% of 14 reasoned grants)
MinnesotaThe arrest itself was unlawful (44% of 9 reasoned grants)
MassachusettsGovernment did not justify the detention (40% of 10 reasoned grants)
Tennessee§1226(a) governs: a bond hearing is owed (63% of 8 reasoned grants)
WashingtonGovernment did not justify the detention (44% of 9 reasoned grants)
MarylandThe arrest itself was unlawful (43% of 7 reasoned grants)

Why courts denied relief

The main reason given, among the 90 denials; reported in 78% of them.

Detention lawful on the facts24%
The court found the detention authorized and reasonable on this person's facts (final order, flight risk, criminal ground).
Basis not stated22%
The story reports the denial but not the reasoning.
No irreparable harm shown14%
Emergency relief denied because ordinary detention hardship is not irreparable harm, or detention was too brief.
Procedural: exhaustion, timing, or form14%
Denied for failure to exhaust, prematurity, or a defect in how the petition was brought.
No jurisdiction or wrong venue12%
Dismissed or denied because the person was transferred, the custodian is elsewhere, or the court lacks jurisdiction.
Mandatory detention applies10%
The court accepted that §1225(b) or §1226(c) requires detention without bond.
Moot2%
Dismissed because the person was released, removed, or the relief sought no longer applies.

Grounds, and how they fared

Share of all cases raising each ground, and the court's response among those cases.

Held without a bond hearing37% of cases · 91% of rulings for the petitioner
Re-detained after release or at a check-in32% of cases · 94% of rulings for the petitioner
No notice or hearing32% of cases · 94% of rulings for the petitioner
Family or caregiver hardship24% of cases · 90% of rulings for the petitioner
Unlawful arrest23% of cases · 91% of rulings for the petitioner
Conditions or medical need15% of cases · 91% of rulings for the petitioner
Prolonged detention13% of cases · 88% of rulings for the petitioner
Protection from removal ignored13% of cases · 87% of rulings for the petitioner
Transfer away from the court12% of cases · 85% of rulings for the petitioner
Citizenship or status claim10% of cases · 87% of rulings for the petitioner
Removal to a third country6% of cases · 82% of rulings for the petitioner
Class or policy challenge5% of cases · 93% of rulings for the petitioner
Expedited removal applied wrongly1% of cases · 91% of rulings for the petitioner

Court sided with the petitioner
Denied
Ended without a ruling (deported, moved, released)
Pending or not reported

What the government did after the filing

Complied10%
Court order not followed8%
Transferred after the filing7%
Deported after the filing5%
Released before the ruling3%
Returned after removal2%

The statute in dispute

Whether the government is treating people as “applicants for admission” with no bond eligibility (§1225(b)), the position that spread after the Board's 2025 decision, or as ordinary detainees owed a bond hearing (§1226(a)).

§1225(b): no bond eligibility claimed13%
§1226(a): bond hearing available22%
§1226(c): mandatory detention, criminal ground2%
§1231: after a final removal order13%
Not stated50%

The share of cases where the government cites §1225(b) is the red line in the issues chart above.