Filed Date: Jan. 28, 2026
Closed Date: Feb. 19, 2026
Clearinghouse coding complete
This is a challenge to an unlawful arrest and detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) officers.
On January 7, 2026, Petitioner, a 21-year-old national of El Salvador, was “arrested, abruptly and without warning by a group of masked men purporting to be" ICE officers. According to the Petition, the Petitioner had not broken any traffic laws, but an officer pulled him over. When the Petitioner asked why he had been pulled over, he was told by the officer that there was a plastic cover on the license plate of the vehicle, and that was allegedly a traffic violation. Abruptly, as it is described in the Petition, he was arrested by “a group of masked men” who got out of an “unmarked black Ford Explorer without even a license plate." Since being detained, he has yet to be cited or charged for a traffic citation.
On January 28, 2026, Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. The plaintiffs sued Donald J. Trump, in his capacity as United States President, the United States Department of Homeland Security (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), the United States Department of State, and the United States Department of Justice. The petitioner alleged that his stop, arrest, and detention violated multiple constitutional, statutory, and regulatory protections, including the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), its implementing regulations, and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). The petitioner alleged that his presence in the United States was lawful, since he had entered the U.S. as an unaccompanied minor in 2022, and possessed a pending asylum case, work permit, and valid driver's license. The Petitioner sought an order from the court to immediately release him and a declaration that the Petitioner’s arrest and detention were unlawful.
At the time of the Petition, Petitioner was detained at South Central Regional Jail (“SCRJ”) in Charleston, West Virginia. The following day, January 29, 2026, the court stayed any removal proceeding that would take Petitioner out of the district, set a briefing schedule, and scheduled a show cause hearing for February 5, 2026. But on February 2, 2026, the Government notified the court that Petitioner was no longer in the district. Instead, the Government said that Petitioner was in Texas, and later counsel confirmed that the Petitioner was transferred to Washington state after being in Texas. The court did not find that the Government had willfully ignored the January 29 order, but the court did order the Petitioner’s return to the district and reset the hearing on the Petition. On February 12, 2026, the Government notified the court that the Petitioner had been returned to the district.
Following a show cause hearing on February 19, 2026, the court granted the petition for writ of habeas corpus. The court found violations of both the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. With regard to the Fourth Amendment, the court held that warrantless seizures by masked, anonymous federal agents operating from unmarked vehicles, without articulable justification, violate the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement because it eliminates accountability and transparency essential to constitutional government. The court distinguished this from legitimate undercover operations, finding no genuine exigency justified the anonymity. The court also found violations of the Fifth Amendment and determined that the petitioner was improperly detained without proper due process procedures. Specifically, the court found the petitioner was improperly detained under § 1225(b)(2)(A) when § 1226(a) should apply, requiring individualized custody determinations, citing cases including Doornbos v. City of Chicago, 868 F.3d 572 (7th Cir. 2017) and applying the balancing test in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976). Ultimately, the court ordered the petitioner's immediate release from civil immigration custody and prohibited respondents from re-arresting and detaining him absent significant changes in circumstances or determination by a neutral decisionmaker. In accordance with this opinion, the court entered a judgment order that dismissed the case and ordered it stricken from the record.
As of March 2026, the appeal period has passed, and this case is closed.
Summary Authors
Jinan Abufarha (3/3/2026)
Haleigh Knowles (3/30/2026)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72205355/parties/urquilla-ramos-v-trump/
Goodwin, Joseph Robert (West Virginia)
Arthur, Christopher R. (West Virginia)
Baloch, Omar (West Virginia)
Eates, Anthony D. (West Virginia)
Lindsay, Matthew C. (West Virginia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72205355/urquilla-ramos-v-trump/
Last updated April 20, 2026, 3:13 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: Jan. 28, 2026
Closing Date: Feb. 19, 2026
Case Ongoing: No reason to think so
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Anderson Jesus Urquilla-Ramos
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
Donald J. Trump
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Immigration and Customs Enforcement)
U.S. Department of Justice
U.S. Department of State
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Habeas Corpus, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241-2253; 2254; 2255
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq.
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Second Amendment (Right to Bear Arms)
Other Dockets:
Southern District of West Virginia 2:26-cv-00066
Special Case Type(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Immigration/Border:
Case Summary of Urquilla-Ramos v. Trump, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/47864/ (last updated 3/30/2026).