Case: Estrada Juarez v. Noem
2:26-cv-00801 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
Filed Date: March 10, 2026
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This lawsuit challenged the Trump Administration’s ability to ignore due process protections in detaining and removing Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients.
The plaintiff, an immigrant who lived in the United States for over 27 years with valid DACA status since 2013, was detained during a voluntary USCIS hearing on February 18, 2026, and removed to Mexico the following morning without receiving a copy of the final removal order. On March 10, 2026, the plaintiff brought this petition for a writ of habeas corpus against Kristi Noem, then-Secretary of Homeland Security; Todd Lyons, then-director of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); Pam Bondi, then-U.S. Attorney General; and Sergio Albarran, ICE Field Office Director in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, asserting violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment. The plaintiff petitioned for an order declaring that her removal was unlawful, requiring her DACA status to be reinstated, and moved for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to require her return to the United States. The case was initially assigned to Judge William B. Shubb, but reassigned on the same day, March 10, to Judge Dena M. Coggins.
In her habeas petition and TRO motion, the plaintiff claimed that (1) her removal was in violation of her right to due process concerning her DACA status, (2) she was removed without statutory authority or notice that she was subject to removal, and (3) the defendants acted in violation of the APA in detaining and removing her. The government filed its opposition to the petition and motion on March 16, claiming the district court did not have habeas jurisdiction over this case because the plaintiff was already released from custody at the time of filing.
The court granted the motion for a TRO on March 23, 2026 and ordered the plaintiff’s immediate return to the United States and restoration of her DACA protections. 2026 WL 799976. The court rejected the government’s challenge to habeas jurisdiction, finding that the Ninth Circuit’s extreme circumstances exception applied: “a noncitizen unlawfully removed from the United States under extreme circumstances may seek their return despite no longer being detained in the district in which they seek relief.” The court also found that the plaintiff had a property interest in keeping her DACA status, so the deportation and removal was a violation of the plaintiff’s due process rights. The court held that irreparable harm occurred by violating the plaintiff’s constitutional rights and separating her from her family. In balancing equities and public interest, the court held that despite the government’s interest in quickly removing individuals, it is not enabled to do so unlawfully. The court denied posting bond because of low cost and risk to the government as a result of the plaintiff’s return. The case was referred to Chief Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney for all further proceedings.
On April 20, 2026, Judge Delaney issued an order to show cause that the matter was not moot, since the plaintiff’s requested relief was granted. The plaintiff filed two responses on April 23 and April 29 asserting that the matter is not moot. The case has not been dismissed.
Summary Authors
Jason Bondurant (6/25/2026)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72389275/parties/hc-estrada-juarez-v-noem/
GOVT, Jonathan Williams (California)
Tolchin, Stacy Eva (California)
Unit, US Attorney's (California)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72389275/hc-estrada-juarez-v-noem/
Last updated Oct. 21, 2026, 3:40 a.m.
Docket for: (HC) Estrada Juarez v. Noem
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: March 10, 2026
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Plaintiff is an individual with valid DACA status who was deported.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
U.S. Attorney General
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Field Office Director
U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Other Dockets:
Eastern District of California 2:26-cv-00801
Special Case Type(s):
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
Immigration/Border:
DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals)
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Case Summary of Estrada Juarez v. Noem, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/47975/ (last updated 6/25/2026).