Case: Cirrus Rojas v. Olson
2:25-cv-01437 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
Filed Date: Sept. 17, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This is one of several lawsuits in which a federal court of appeals has addressed whether the mandatory detention (without bond) provision in 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) applies to noncitizens present in the U.S.
On September 17, 2025, a Mexican national who had lived in the U.S. without authorization since 2018 filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus and individual complaint for emergency injunctive relief in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. He sued the Field Office Director of the Chicago Field Office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Administrator of the Dodge County Jail, both in their official capacities; the real party of interest was the federal government and its immigration-enforcement agencies. Represented by private counsel, the petitioner brought his claims under the habeas statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). He alleged that his continued detention violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), while resting on an ultra vires exercise of regulatory authority. He sought immediate release through a writ of habeas corpus, a declaratory judgment, an order barring his transfer out of the district, and attorneys' fees. The case was assigned to District Judge Brett H. Ludwig.
The dispute grew out of a mid-2025 change in federal immigration policy. ICE arrested the petitioner in June 2025 on a warrant citing 8 U.S.C. § 1226, the provision long used to detain noncitizens found in the country's interior. An immigration judge found him neither a danger to the community nor a flight risk and ordered his release on a $1,500 bond. ICE then reversed course: relying on new, non-public interim guidance issued to agency staff days earlier, it reclassified the petitioner as an "applicant for admission" subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) and invoked the automatic-stay regulation to keep him detained while it appealed the bond order to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
On September 25, 2025, the petitioner moved for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction seeking the same immediate release. The parties agreed that the issues were purely legal, and the court proceeded to the merits. On October 30, 2025, Judge Ludwig denied the petition and motion, and dismissed the case with prejudice. The court concluded that Section 1225(b)(2)(A) governed the petitioner's detention and that he was therefore subject to mandatory detention. It further held that his continued detention was consistent with due process because it was time-limited and adjudicated under existing procedural protections. 2025 WL 3033967.
Represented by the ACLU, the petitioner appealed the district court’s October 30 order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. While the appeal was pending, he moved for immediate release from detention pending appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 23(b). On January 12, 2026, a panel of Circuit Judges denied the motion for release pending appeal, with Circuit Judge Kolar dissenting on the ground that he would have granted release.
In a separate nationwide class action—Lazaro Maldonado Bautista v. Ernesto Santacruz Jr., 820 F. Supp. 1016, 1030 (C.D. Cal. 2026)—a California federal district court vacated the BIA decision, adopting the government's new interpretation. A second immigration judge again ordered the petitioner to be released; the government did not immediately stay that order, and the petitioner was released from custody on February 26, 2026. Soon after, the Ninth Circuit stayed the California order. The government purported to cancel the petitioner's bond, appealed to the BIA, and stated that it would re-detain him if the Board reversed his release. In light of the release, the Seventh Circuit ordered supplemental briefing on mootness and directed the government to state whether it intended to re-detain him. The court heard oral argument on June 15, 2026.
On July 30, 2026, the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded, with Judge Sykes dissenting. The court first held that the appeal was not moot–because the government had vowed to re-detain the petitioner and nothing prevented it from doing so– and his release was at most a temporary reprieve that a favorable habeas judgment could still redress. On the merits, the court held that a noncitizen present in the interior without admission who is not "seeking admission" falls under Section 1226, and is eligible for a bond hearing, rather than under Section 1225(b)(2)(A)'s mandatory-detention provision. The court reasoned that the statute's legal fiction "deeming" such noncitizens "applicants for admission" does not make them people who are actually "seeking admission," and it joined the majority of circuits that had rejected the government's reading. It reversed the district court's denial of the petition and remanded with instructions to issue the writ and to dispose of the matter as law and justice require. Judge Sykes dissented, finding the government's interpretation more persuasive and adopting the reasoning of the Sixth Circuit's dissent in Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft. The Seventh Circuit entered final judgment the same day, reversing with costs and remanding.
As of August 2026, the case had been remanded to the district court with instructions to issue the writ, and no further proceedings had yet taken place on remand. The petitioner remained out of custody on bond but faced potential re-detention while the government pursued its administrative appeals.
Summary Authors
Alexis Gil (8/21/2026)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71372297/parties/cirrus-rojas-v-olson/
Attorney, Rebecca Cassler, (Wisconsin)
Attorney, Amit Jain, (Wisconsin)
Attorney, Drew C. (Wisconsin)
Attorney, Jonathan H. (Wisconsin)
Attorney, Robert Dale (Wisconsin)
Attorney, Rebecca Cassler, (Wisconsin)
Attorney, Amit Jain, (Wisconsin)
Attorney, Jonathan H. (Wisconsin)
Attorney, Robert Dale (Wisconsin)
Attorney, Natalie Behr, (Wisconsin)
Attorney, Jenifer M. (Wisconsin)
Attorney, Judy Rabinovitz, (Wisconsin)
Attorney, Oscar Sarabia (Wisconsin)
Attorney, My Khanh (Wisconsin)
Attorney, Michael Tan, (Wisconsin)
Larsen, Christian R (Wisconsin)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71372297/cirrus-rojas-v-olson/
Last updated Oct. 17, 2026, 3:19 a.m.
Docket for: Cirrus Rojas v. Olson
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump 1.0 & 2.0 Immigration Enforcement Order Challenges
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: Sept. 17, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Plaintiff is a Mexican national present in the United States since 2018, detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the Dodge County Jail and seeking release from detention.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
American Immigration Council's Legal Action Center
American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA)
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
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
Due Process: Substantive Due Process
Other Dockets:
Eastern District of Wisconsin 2:25-cv-01437
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 25-03127
Special Case Type(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Immigration/Border:
Undocumented immigrants - rights and duties
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Over/Unlawful Detention (facilities)
Case Summary of Cirrus Rojas v. Olson, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/48338/ (last updated 8/21/2026).