District of Oregon • 1:26-cv-01489

#1

Jul 19, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241- Federal) Filing Fee in amount of $5 collected. Agency Tracking ID: AORDC-10342556. Filed by S-R-C against Todd Blanche, Department of Homeland Security, Julio Hernandez, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Markwayne Mullin, David Venturella (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet). (Easton, Robert) (Entered: 07/19/2026)

#2

Jul 19, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment: This case is assigned to Judge Ann L. Aiken. (eo) (Entered: 07/19/2026)

#3

Jul 19, 2026

Immigration Habeas Petition Scheduling Order. Signed on 7/19/26 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (eo) (Entered: 07/19/2026)

#4

Jul 20, 2026

Scheduling Order: At the joint request of the parties, the Government's return is due by 8/21/2026. Petitioner's Brief/Supporting Memorandum is due by 9/11/2026. Ordered by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (ck) (Entered: 07/20/2026)

#5

Jul 20, 2026

ORDER: This Court has jurisdiction over this case for the reasons that follow. 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 by 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, 218-19 (2021) (quoting United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 628 (2022)). 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 respondents 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 294-95. 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). Ordered by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (ck) (Entered: 07/20/2026)

Jul 20, 2026

5a - Habeas Scheduling Order - Immigration