Western District of Texas • 5:26-cv-01007

#1

Feb 11, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (filing fee $ 5, receipt number AMNDC-12669788) filed by Rosa Vasquez Salguero. No summons requested. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Pauley, Samantha) [Transferred from Minnesota on 2/17/2026.] (Entered: 02/11/2026)

#2

Feb 11, 2026

DECLARATION of Samantha Pauley re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Rosa Vasquez Salguero . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A, # 2 Exhibit(s) B, # 3 Exhibit(s) C)(Pauley, Samantha) [Transferred from Minnesota on 2/17/2026.] (Entered: 02/11/2026)

#3

Feb 11, 2026

(Text-Only) CLERK'S NOTICE OF INITIAL CASE ASSIGNMENT. Case assigned to Judge Judge Katherine M. Menendez per Civil (3rd, 4th - Prisoner: Alien Detainee Habeas) list, referred to Magistrate Judge Judge John F. Docherty. Please use case number 26-cv-1349 KMM/JFD.Notice: All Nongovernmental Corporate Parties must file a Rule 7.1 Corporate Disclosure Statement. (mkr) [Transferred from Minnesota on 2/17/2026.] (Entered: 02/11/2026)

#4

Feb 11, 2026

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Katherine M. Menendez on 2/11/2026. (LC2) [Transferred from Minnesota on 2/17/2026.] (Entered: 02/11/2026)

#5

Feb 12, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Friedrich A. P. Siekert on behalf of Pamela Jo Bondi, David Easterwood, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem, Peter Salinas. (Siekert, Friedrich) [Transferred from Minnesota on 2/17/2026.] (Entered: 02/12/2026)

#6

Feb 14, 2026

RESPONSE by Pamela Jo Bondi, David Easterwood, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem, Peter Salinas re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus . (Siekert, Friedrich) [Transferred from Minnesota on 2/17/2026.] (Entered: 02/14/2026)

#7

Feb 15, 2026

REPLY re 4 Order to Show Cause filed by Rosa Vasquez Salguero.(Pauley, Samantha) [Transferred from Minnesota on 2/17/2026.] (Entered: 02/15/2026)

#8

Feb 16, 2026

ORDER Directing Clerk to transfer case to the Western District of Texas. Signed by Judge Katherine M. Menendez on 2/16/2026.(LC3) [Transferred from Minnesota on 2/17/2026.] (Entered: 02/16/2026)

#9

Feb 17, 2026

Case Transferred In - District Transfer

Feb 17, 2026

If ordered by the court, all referrals will be assigned to Magistrate Judge Chestney (rqr)

Feb 17, 2026

Case assigned to Judge Jason K. Pulliam. CM WILL NOW REFLECT THE JUDGE INITIALS AS PART OF THE CASE NUMBER. PLEASE APPEND THESE JUDGE INITIALS TO THE CASE NUMBER ON EACH DOCUMENT THAT YOU FILE IN THIS CASE. (rqr)

Feb 17, 2026

Case Assigned/Reassigned

Feb 17, 2026

To be Referred to SA Mag Judge

#10

Feb 18, 2026

Order

#11

Feb 18, 2026

Notice of Attorney Appearance

#12

Feb 18, 2026

Appear Pro Hac Vice

#13

Feb 18, 2026

Appear Pro Hac Vice

#14

Feb 20, 2026

Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice AND Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice

#15

Feb 25, 2026

Status Report

#16

Feb 27, 2026

Order

#17

Mar 02, 2026

Judgment

#18

Mar 02, 2026

Status Report

#19

Mar 13, 2026

Enforce Judgment

#20

Mar 20, 2026

Response

#21

Mar 27, 2026

Reply to Response to Motion

#22

May 22, 2026

TEXT ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 19 Motion to Reopen and to Enforce Court's Order. With 20 Response and 21 Reply, the motion is fully briefed and ready for ruling. Petitioners (mother and child) view the imposition of GPS monitoring as a condition of release as contrary to the Court's order for release on "appropriate conditions" and constitutes an additional form of detention. The Court released Petitioners from their detention. Prior to that detention, Petitioners' release status reflected an understanding of the Government that Petitioners were not then viewed as a flight risk or danger. The Court understands the delicate balance between liberty and order. When, as here, a petitioner has no known criminal history, had been complying with the terms of a prior release, and there is no indication of flight risk or danger to the community, release should be under conditions no more restrictive than those in place before the detention at issue. Since the decision in this case, the Court has modified its release orders to more clearly enunciate that principle. Moreover, when the undersigned orders release under appropriate conditions and the Petitioners also satisfy the above criteria, imposed conditions are not appropriate as a general matter if they are more restrictive than those in place before the detention at issue. The Government, of course, can seek to modify conditions through lawful means independent of this Court's order releasing Petitioners. In other words, the Court's order does not preclude the Government from modifying prior conditions of release through order of an immigration judge or other formal immigration process. But, under the facts of this case and absent modification through such a process, imposed conditions on Petitioners in this case shall be no more restrictive than those in place prior to the detention from which they have been released. The Court thus grants the motion solely to provide that clarification as to the meaning of "appropriate conditions" as used in its order granting habeas relief. Absent modified conditions of release through a formal immigration process, Respondents shall remove the condition of release imposing GPS monitoring on Petitioners forthwith, but in no event later than noon on Tuesday, May 26, 2026. The Court otherwise denies the motion. It attributes no bad faith, intentional or willful non-compliance, or other ill-motive to the Government's actions and interpretation. (Entered: 05/22/2026)

May 22, 2026

Order on Motion to Enforce Judgment