The case originated out of the Minnesota federal district. It was one of many such cases seeking the release of one or more illegal aliens detained by ICE.
The 2-1 decision by the Eighth Circuit can be read here.
The case originated in August 2025 and is captioned Joaquin Herrera Avila v. Bondi. The appeals court reversed the district court judge’s decision to order the release of the illegal alien from ICE custody.
Since the beginning of 2026, more than 1,100 such habeas cases have been filed in Minnesota alone.
Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth begin!
- Politico: Another appeals court backs Trump administration’s mass detention policy
- Bloomberg: Eighth Circuit Backs Mandatory Detention Policy for Noncitizens
- The Hill: Appeals court upholds ICE mass detention policy
[This is Scott adding a footnote: When the Eighth Circuit reverses the opinion of a district judge, it customarily omits the name of the judge as a matter of courtesy, as it does here. In this case the (senior) judge is John Tunheim. Judge Tunheim’s opinion is posted online here.]
JOHN adds: I believe this means that all of the hundreds of orders issued in Minnesota by Democratic Party judges, ordering the release of illegal aliens in response to habeas corpus petitions, were wrong. It also means that the judges who harassed and threatened to jail lawyers in the U.S. Attorney’s Office were wrong. As were the judges who held hearings over missing shoelaces and the like. All wrong, all reversed.
So President Trump, Pam Bondi, the Department of Justice, the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and U.S. Attorney Dan Rosen have been, as I read the 8th Circuit opinion, fully vindicated. Perhaps apologies will be forthcoming from the Democratic Party judges who have now been reversed.
SCOTT adds: Expanding on John’s point, I hope that what he says proves to be the case, but it is probably premature at this point. The Eighth Circuit decision does not become final until the Court issues its mandate. The losing alien in this case is likely to file a petition for rehearing by the Court en banc that will delay issuance of the mandate. Petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court is likely to result in further delay of the mandate. As I understand the issue decided here, the Minnesota federal district courts had jurisdiction to hear these cases, but decided them wrongly by granting habeas relief. They may in any event have had jurisdiction to convene the Department of Lost and Found in the many of these cases in which they have been acting as such and holding show cause hearings, but I’m not sure about that.
