Filed Date: June 4, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This is a class action lawsuit challenging the detention of immigrants at Guantánamo Bay. On January 29, 2025, President Trump issued a presidential memorandum titled “Expanding the Migrant Operations Center at Naval Station Guantánamo Bay to Full Capacity,” directing the U.S. Departments of Defense and Homeland Security to prepare the facility to detain up to 30,000 migrants. The memorandum eliminated procedural safeguards such as bond hearings, individualized custody reviews, and access to immigration courts. It also authorized the transfer of noncitizens—many initially apprehended and detained in the United States—to both the Migrant Operations Center and the military-run Camp 6. These directives marked a significant departure from the statutory requirements of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which mandates notice, custody hearings, and removal procedures before prolonged detention. Guantánamo Bay Naval Base was originally established as a military detention facility for enemy combatants captured during the U.S. “War on Terror.” Its use for immigration detention represents a significant shift from its historical purpose, raising concerns about subjecting immigrants to conditions designed for wartime detainees.
On June 4, 2025, two individual plaintiffs filed this class action lawsuit and petition for writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and its Secretary, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and its Secretary, the U.S. Department of Defense and its Secretary, and the U.S. State Department and its Secretary. The case was initially assigned to U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols but reassigned to Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan on June 18, 2025.
The plaintiffs alleged that their detention at Guantánamo Bay exceeded the defendants’ statutory authority and violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment. They challenged their prolonged detention without notice or bond hearings, citing harsh and unlawful conditions and a lack of procedural protections. They further alleged that they were apprehended and detained solely because of their foreign status, without individualized assessments or due process, effectively criminalizing their origin in violation of constitutional protections. The complaint detailed punitive conditions at Guantánamo Bay, including solitary confinement, limited recreation, inadequate hygiene, denial of legal and religious materials, physical abuse, and family separation. It also referenced government press releases and statements by President Trump describing Guantánamo as a “detention center for illegal immigrants” and expressing the administration’s intent to “ensure strict enforcement” of immigration laws by expanding Guantánamo’s use as a detention site.
Represented by private counsel from the ACLU, ACLU-DC, Center for Constitutional Rights, and the International Refugee Assistance Project, the plaintiffs sought a writ of habeas corpus for immediate release, declaratory relief recognizing violations of their constitutional and statutory rights, and injunctive relief to prevent detention of them or others in the proposed class without proper notice, individualized custody determinations, and bond hearings. They also sought an order requiring compliance with immigration statutes and regulations, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs.
Also on June 4, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, seeking to represent all similarly situated immigration detainees at Guantánamo. The proposed class was defined as “All immigration detainees originally apprehended and detained in the United States, and who are, or will be, held at Naval Station Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.”
On August 4, 2025, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case. The defendants claimed the case was moot because the named plaintiffs were no longer in U.S. custody and were unlikely to be detained again under the challenged policies. They also argued the court lacked jurisdiction because the Immigration and Nationality Act barred judicial review of the defendants’ decision to transfer an alien to a detention facility. Finally, they contended that the plaintiffs’ claims failed to state a cause of action, arguing that the Administrative Procedure Act claims challenged a presidential order and non-final actions, the Secretary of Homeland Security had statutory authority to detain individuals overseas, and the presidential memorandum was not arbitrary or capricious. They further argued that the plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged a Fifth Amendment due process violation and that adequate safeguards ensured acceptable detention conditions.
The case remains ongoing.
Summary Authors
Victoria Tan (8/13/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70456103/parties/luna-gutierrez-v-noem/
Alagesan, Deepa (District of Columbia)
Cho, Eunice Hyunhye (District of Columbia)
Gelernt, Lee (District of Columbia)
Grano, Kimberly Robin (District of Columbia)
Jadwat, Omar C. (District of Columbia)
Alagesan, Deepa (District of Columbia)
Cho, Eunice Hyunhye (District of Columbia)
Gelernt, Lee (District of Columbia)
Grano, Kimberly Robin (District of Columbia)
Jadwat, Omar C. (District of Columbia)
Kaufman, Brett Max (District of Columbia)
Michelman, Scott (District of Columbia)
Ngo, My Khanh (District of Columbia)
Rabinovitz, Judy (District of Columbia)
Smith, Noelle (District of Columbia)
Spitzer, Arthur B. (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70456103/luna-gutierrez-v-noem/
Last updated Aug. 21, 2025, 2:45 p.m.
State / Territory: District of Columbia
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump 1.0 & 2.0 Immigration Enforcement Order Challenges
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government (Immigration Enforcement)
Key Dates
Filing Date: June 4, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Immigrants detained at Guantánamo Bay
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR)
International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP)
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Pending
Defendants
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (- United States (national) -), Federal
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (- United States (national) -), Federal
U.S. Department of Defense (- United States (national) -), Federal
U.S. Department of State (- United States (national) -), Federal
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Special Case Type(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Immigration/Border: