Filed Date: Jan. 12, 2026
Closed Date: Jan. 27, 2026
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case is a habeas petition filed by a high schooler from Venezuela who was living in the United States under his parents' asylum status when he was arrested and detained on an ICE hold.
On January 12, 2026, a national of Venezuela filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida against the Sheriff of Orange County, Florida, the Warden of Orange County Jail, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the Orlando Field Office ICE Director. The plaintiff was a high schooler who stated he was lawfully present in the United States and possessed a valid driver license, social security number and employment authorization. He was the derivative child of his mother's I-589 asylum status and his father's pending asylum application, and thus, the plaintiff argued he was not properly subject to immigration detention absent lawful federal process. However, on January 7, 2026, the plaintiff was arrested and detained by the Orange County Sheriff's Office for allegedly being "undocumented," despite having no criminal record, no pending charges, and receiving no written notice stating the legal basis for his detention. The plaintiff further alleged that the defendants were detaining him solely on an Immigration and Customs Enforcement immigration retainer (ICE hold) and intended to transfer him to an immigration detention facility in Miami, Florida. The plaintiff argued that his detention was unlawful, as ICE holds do not supply independent lawful authority for local detention, that detaining him without a criminal charge or judicial warrant constituted an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, that being detained without judicial process and meaningful opportunity was a due process violation under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and that local officials acted outside their statutory authority by detaining him. The plaintiff requested that the court issue a writ of habeas corpus directing the defendants to immediately release him, issue a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction preventing the defendants from transferring the petitioner to ICE custody absent lawful authority, and declare his detention unlawful.
This case was assigned to District Court Judge Roy B. Dalton.
The day after filing his habeas petition, on January 13, 2026, the plaintiff filed a second motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO).
The court issued the TRO on January 14, 2026 and set an expedited briefing schedule and hearing on the plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction. The court found that the plaintiff was likely to succeed on the merits, finding that noncitizens lawfully in the United States with temporary protected status (TPS) are entitled to due process under the 5th Amendment, and that noncitizens, like the plaintiff, who are present in the United States and have TPS and active applications for asylum, are not subject to mandatory detention without a bond hearing. The court acknowledged that there is ongoing litigation about the future of Venezuela's TPS designation, but found that currently, the petitioner is protected by TPS. The court additionally found that the violation of the petitioner's constitutional rights constituted irreparable harm, and that if he were transferred to another facility, the court's jurisdiction could be impacted, rendering the plaintiff unlawfully detained without due process for an extended period of time. Finally, the court found that the balance of equities and public interest weighed in favor of granting the TRO because there was no identifiable legitimate public interest served by the plaintiff's likely unlawful detention.
On January 21, 2026, the court heard oral argument on the plaintiff's habeas petition, and the court orally issued an order granting the petition, instructing the defendants to immediately release the plaintiff and enjoining them from re-arresting the plaintiff for a period of at least ten days following his release.
On January 26, 2026, the court issued a written order explaining its reasoning. The court rejected the defendants' argument that they lawfully arrested the plaintiff under the Immigration and Nationality Act's (INA) mandatory detention framework, 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), which mandates the detention of applicants for admission to the United States if an immigration officer determines that the individual is not clearly entitled to be admitted. The court found that the mandatory framework only applies to individuals seeking entry at the border, not immigrants who already live in the United States, and that the proper framework to apply would have been 8 U.S.C. § 1226, which applies to immigrants living in the United States, and provides for an individualized bond hearing. The court then discussed the proper remedy. It stated that because the government never argued in the alternative that the plaintiff was subject to detention under § 1226, and because immigration judges are refusing to conduct bond hearings entirely under § 1226, simply ordering the defendants to provide the plaintiff with a bond hearing would not be sufficient. Consequently, the court found that the only appropriate remedy was to order the defendants to immediately release the plaintiff and permanently enjoin them from detaining him under § 1225. The court also chastised the defendants for ignoring judges across the country who have held that § 1225 does not apply to individuals living in the United States, and ordered the defendants' attorneys to show cause why they should not be sanctioned. 2026 WL 199319.
The court issued final judgment for the plaintiff pursuant to its order granting the habeas petition on January 27, 2026.
On March 19, 2026, the court issued an order admonishing the defendants’ attorneys, but declining to impose official sanctions. The court stated that “the U.S. Attorney blaming "unprecedented" times for the recent subpar practice rings hollow. The Government cannot use exigency as an excuse when it caused the exigency. Unfortunately, its line attorneys are the ones suffering the consequences.” Next, it reminded that “the Government's attorneys have a duty of candor to the Court independent of their duties to their client. In this District alone, ICE has falsified warrants,” “deported American citizens,” and “defied no-transfer orders [...] These violations are widespread. The Government's attorneys cannot allow an imperious client to separate them from their professional obligations. The Court expects them to practice ethically even in unprecedented times. Crucially, this ethical obligation of candor includes fully briefing contrary authority. The notion that an attorney need not cite contrary law when the Court is "well versed" on the applicable jurisprudence improperly shifts counsel's responsibility to the Court.” The court concluded by saying that it “is troubled that attorneys would offer that as an excuse in a show-cause response. The Government's lawyers know better.”
Summary Authors
Claire Pollard (3/29/2026)
Sofia Yoder (4/15/2026)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72134381/parties/gimenez-rivero-v-mina-orange-county/
Dalton, Roy Bale (Florida)
Arroyo, Phillip H. (Florida)
Warner, Joy (Florida)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72134381/gimenez-rivero-v-mina-orange-county/
Last updated April 20, 2026, 3:09 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: Jan. 12, 2026
Closing Date: Jan. 27, 2026
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Plaintiff is a high schooler from Venezuela living in the United States under his parents' temporary protected status.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (
United States Department of Homeland Security
State
John Mina
Louis A. Quinones
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Habeas Corpus, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241-2253; 2254; 2255
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Unreasonable search and seizure
Other Dockets:
Middle District of Florida 6:26-cv-00066
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Release from detention/imprisonment
Issues
Immigration/Border:
Case Summary of Gimenez Rivero v. Mina (Orange County), Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/47988/ (last updated 4/15/2026).