Federal Courts Strike Down ICE’s Unlawful Re-Detention Practice: Two Major Victories for Immigration Detainees in Minnesota

Recent court decisions provide crucial protections for individuals previously released on Orders of Supervision.
In recent months, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has adopted a troubling new practice of re-detaining individuals who were previously released on Orders of Supervision—often without providing adequate justification or following required legal procedures. Two groundbreaking federal court decisions in Minnesota have recently struck down this practice, ordering the immediate release of wrongfully detained individuals and establishing important legal precedent.

Roble v. Bondi and Sarail A. v. Bondi
In August and September 2025, federal judges in the District of Minnesota issued orders in Roble v. Bondi and Sarail A. v. Bondi, both granting habeas corpus petitions on an expedited basis and ordering ICE to immediately release individuals who had been unlawfully re-detained. Both cases involved individuals with final removal orders who had been granted protection from removal to their home countries—Roble under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) due to threats from al-Shabaab related to his half-brother’s political activism, and Sarail A. as someone whose citizenship status remained unclear despite years of ICE efforts. After being unable to effectuate removal, ICE properly released both individuals on Orders of Supervision, which they complied with for years. However, in summer 2025, ICE suddenly revoked their supervised release and re-detained both men, claiming that “changed circumstances” made their removal “significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future.”

ICE Violated Its Own Regulations
Both federal courts found that ICE had violated its own regulations in multiple ways.

Under federal regulation 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(3), when ICE revokes someone’s Order of Supervision, it must notify them “of the reasons for revocation of his or her release.” Both courts found that ICE’s generic notices, which merely stated that “changed circumstances” existed without explaining what those circumstances were, violated this requirement. As Judge Laura Provinzino wrote in the Roble decision: “Providing a notice that simply recites the language of the regulation does not satisfy the Government’s obligation to provide the ‘reasons’ why [the individual’s] Order of Supervision was revoked.” The courts emphasized that individuals cannot meaningfully respond to revocation charges if they don’t know what specific circumstances supposedly changed.

More fundamentally, both courts found that ICE failed to demonstrate any genuine changed circumstances that would make removal significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future. In Roble, the government’s only argument was that ICE had “requested third country removal assistance from headquarters” on August 11, 2025—the same day the habeas petition was filed. The court called this evidence “woefully short,” noting that ICE provided no information about what assistance was requested, the likelihood of success, or why removal was more probable than when Roble was initially released in 2019. In Sarail A., the government pointed to general guidance that “Jamaica is now cooperating with ICE to issue travel documents,” but provided no evidence that Sarail was actually a Jamaican citizen or that a travel document would be issued for him.

The courts clarified that ICE must make an individualized determination based on specific factors outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(f), including:

- The individual’s history of compliance with removal orders
- ICE’s historical success removing people to the destination country or third countries
- The ongoing nature of ICE’s current removal efforts
- The reasonably foreseeable results of those efforts
- State Department views on removal prospects

As the First Circuit explained in Kong v. United States, which both Minnesota courts cited, ICE cannot simply make conclusory assertions—it must consider these concrete factors and provide evidence supporting its determination. The Minnesota decisions in Roble and Sarail A. join similar rulings from federal courts in Massachusetts, California, Maryland, Kansas, and other jurisdictions, creating a growing body of precedent requiring ICE to follow proper procedures before re-detaining individuals on Orders of Supervision.

The decisions establish several key principles:
- Specificity requirement: ICE must provide specific, individualized reasons for revocation, not generic regulatory language
- Burden of proof: ICE bears the burden of demonstrating that changed circumstances make removal significantly likely
- Factual basis requirement: ICE must provide concrete evidence, not conclusory assertions, to support its determination
- Procedural compliance: ICE must follow all regulatory requirements, including proper notice and meaningful interview opportunities

These decisions are particularly significant because they address a recent shift in ICE enforcement strategy. Rather than conducting individualized assessments as required by law, ICE appears to be issuing form notices claiming “changed circumstances” without providing specific justification. This practice violates basic due process principles. As Judge Provinzino noted, “The essence of due process is notice and an opportunity to respond,” and meaningful response is impossible when the specific allegations are not disclosed.

What This Means for Affected Individuals and Families

If you or a family member receives a Notice of Revocation of Release:
- Contact an attorney immediately. These cases move quickly, and attempting to handle them without legal representation can result in months of unnecessary detention.
- Preserve all documentation. Keep copies of the revocation notice, any communications with ICE, and records of compliance with supervision conditions.
- Document compliance history. Gather evidence showing faithful adherence to supervision requirements, as this is one factor courts will consider.
- Act quickly. While habeas corpus petitions can be filed at any time during unlawful detention, earlier action typically leads to faster resolution.

Conclusion
The Roble and Sarail A. decisions represent important victories for immigration detainees’ rights and establish clear guardrails for ICE’s detention authority. They confirm that the government cannot circumvent legal protections through conclusory assertions or procedural shortcuts. As ICE continues its pattern of unlawfully detaining immigrants, these local district court decisions provide a roadmap for challenging unlawful re-detention and securing release for individuals whose rights have been violated. The law is clear: ICE must follow its own regulations, provide adequate notice, and demonstrate genuine changed circumstances before re-detaining anyone previously released on supervision. If you believe you or a loved one has been unlawfully re-detained by ICE, immediate legal consultation is essential to protect your rights and secure your release.

-----

This analysis is based on recent federal court decisions and current immigration law. Immigration law is complex and changes frequently. This information should not be considered legal advice, and individuals should consult with a qualified immigration attorney about their specific circumstances.