District of Oregon • 6:25-cv-01426

#1

Aug 12, 2025

Emergency Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241). Filed by J M-L against All Defendants (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet). (Hermansen, Kurt) (Entered: 08/12/2025)

#2

Aug 12, 2025

Emergency Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241- Federal) Filing Fee in amount of $5 collected. Agency Tracking ID: AORDC-9948543. Filed by J M-L against All Defendants (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet). (Hermansen, Kurt) (Entered: 08/12/2025)

#3

Aug 12, 2025

Notice of Case Assignment: This case is assigned to Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai. (jk) (Entered: 08/12/2025)

#4

Aug 12, 2025

ORDER by Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai: Petitioner J-M-L, detained by Respondents on August 12, 2025, while attending a routine immigration check-in at the Eugene ICE office, has filed a petition for habeas corpus. The Court ORDERS the following: (1) The Clerk of the Court must serve a copy of the Petition and this Order upon Respondents and the United States Attorney for the District of Oregon, Scott E. Bradford (scott.bradford@usdoj.gov). (2) The Court will set a schedule for responding to the Petition at a hearing SET for August 13, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. by telephone. (3) Although a United States District Court generally lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to review orders of removal, see 8 U.S.C § 1252(a)(1), (g), it does generally have jurisdiction over habeas petitions. See 28 U.S.C § 2241(a); see also Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004) (citing U.S. Const., Art. I, § 9, cl. 2 and stating that "absent suspension, the writ of habeas corpus remains available to every individual detained within the United States"). Moreover, "'a federal court always has jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction,'" including its own subject-matter jurisdiction. Brownback v. King, 592 U.S. 209, 21819 (2021) (quoting United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 628 (2002)). To give this Court the opportunity to determine whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction, and if so to consider the validity of the habeas petition, a court may order the respondent to preserve the status quo. See United Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258, 293 (1947) ("[T]he District Court ha[s] the power to preserve existing conditions while it... determine[s] its own authority to grant injunctive relief," unless the assertion of jurisdiction is frivolous.). Such an order remains valid unless and until it is overturned, even when the issuing court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to determine the underlying action's merits. See id. at 29495. This principle applies with even greater force where the action the court enjoins would otherwise destroy its jurisdiction or moot the case. United States v. Shipp, 203 U.S. 563, 573 (1906). (4) Unless otherwise ordered by this Court, Petitioner shall not be moved outside of the District of Oregon without first providing advance notice of the intended move. Such notice must be filed in writing and on the docket in this proceeding and must state the reason that the Respondent believes that such a move is necessary and should not be stayed pending further court proceedings. Once that notice has been filed on the docket, the Petitioner shall not be moved out of the District for a period of at least 48 hours from the time of the docketing. If the 48-hour period would end on a weekend or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the same time on the next day that is not a weekend or legal holiday. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(2)(C). This period may be shortened or extended as appropriate by further Court order. (5) If the Respondent has already moved Petitioner outside of this District, Respondent is ordered to notify the Court within two hours of being served with this Order. Such notice must be filed in writing and on the docket in this proceeding. In addition, Respondent is further ordered to state in any such notice the exact date and time that Petitioner left the District of Oregon and the reason why Respondent believed that such a move was immediately necessary. (6) Lastly, to expedite Respondents' ability to file a Response to the Petition, Petitioner is directed to share his "Alien Registration Number" (if known) with Respondent within 24 hours of the filing of this Order. (Copy of Petition, Order and call-in information emailed to United States Attorney on 8/12/2025.) (bd) (Entered: 08/12/2025)

Aug 12, 2025

1 - Scheduling

#5

Aug 13, 2025

MINUTES of Proceedings: Telephonic Scheduling Conference held before Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai regarding Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) 1 and Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 2241 2 . By 8/18/2025, Respondents are ordered to show cause in writing why the Petition should not be granted. An in-person hearing on the Petition is scheduled for August 22, 2025, at 2:00pm. At the time of that hearing, the Court will take any evidence, hear the parties' arguments and, if necessary to resolve the Petition, order a further briefing schedule. In addition, a videoconference hearing to address the Court's authority to address release prior to resolution of the Petition is scheduled for August 15, 2025, at 1:00pm. (Copy of Minutes emailed to USAO on 8/13/2025.) Robert Easton and Kurt Hermansen present as counsel for petitioner. Benjamin Hickman and Josh Keller present as counsel for respondents. (FTR - Eugene Courtroom 1.) (bd) (Entered: 08/13/2025)

#6

Aug 13, 2025

Notice regarding Status of Detention. Filed by Pamela Bondi, Drew Bostock, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (Luse, Susanne) (Entered: 08/13/2025)

Aug 13, 2025

9CONV - Schedules - Set/Reset/Terminate AND Scheduling Conference

#7

Aug 14, 2025

Attorney Substitution

#8

Aug 15, 2025

Attorney Appearance

#9

Aug 15, 2025

Memorandum in Support

Aug 15, 2025

Status Conference

#11

Aug 18, 2025

Consolidate

#12

Aug 18, 2025

Response to Habeas Petition - 2241

#13

Aug 18, 2025

Declaration

#14

Aug 18, 2025

Declaration