It’s been ten days since the federal 8th circuit court of appeals issued a major immigration ruling, throwing out the unlawful legal theory used by local judges to free more than 1,000 ICE detainees in Minnesota. The 8th circuit ruling is binding on the Minnesota district court, among other states.
Local immigration lawyers remain undeterred. Some 17 new habeas corpus cases have been filed since the ruling was published on March 25.
A couple of cases have been transferred to the Western District of Texas, where the detainee is being held. A couple of cases involve “lost and found” items, where the already released detainees allege that they are missing personal items not returned. A couple of cases involve repeat customers, in rare cases where a detainee’s earlier petition for release was not granted.
Adding to that total of 17 are a handful of habeas cases filed immediately before March 25 that have (or will) play(ed) out under the new ruling.
Piecing together one such case from state and federal court records:
Andres Felipe Simbana-Anguisaca was picked up on a DUI charge in Anoka County on March 19. Apparently, the case involves weed rather than alcohol. It would appear that Simbana was released from county custody and picked up by ICE.
On March 23, a habeas corpus petition was filed in federal district court on his behalf, seeking his release from ICE custody. The case (File No. 26-cv-2004) was assigned to Judge Jeffrey Bryan, a Biden/Walz/Dayton appointee.
On March 24, Judge Bryan issued an order with a deadline for the Dept. of Justice to respond to the habeas petition by March 26. In between, the 8th circuit issued their ruling.
Bryan has issued three (3) orders in the case. Unlike other district judges, these orders from Bryan are not available via the regular public electronic database (PACER).
In an accompanying opinion published on March 26 (File Document No. 6) Judge Bryan writes (pp. 2-3), in regards to the March 26, 11:00 am deadline for a DOJ response,
That deadline passed, and Respondents did not timely file a response or a request to extend the deadline imposed in the March 24, 2026 order.
Here is a screenshot of the official history of the file,
A motion for an extension of time was filed as Document #5, preceding the filing of the Judge’s Opinion (#6). The system does not make public to-the-minute time stamps, so it is possible that the Motion was filed late.
However, the Opinion does not mention the existence of any untimely filing made by the DOJ. Given Bryan’s past behavior in habeas cases, I am unwilling to lend him the benefit of the doubt.
In any event, Judge Bryan ordered Simbana released, in a default judgement.
Bryan has scheduled for April 13 a court hearing involving six earlier habeas cases. Three items are labeled as “status conferences” and three as “pre-trial hearings.”
It cannot be determined from public filings who will be on trial and on what charges. Keep in mind that in all instances, the underlying rationale for these decisons has been overruled by the appeals court.
Yet on we march.