NASHVILLE, Tenn. — A federal judge ordered U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to release a man who had been detained for approximately three weeks without a bond hearing, ruling that immigration authorities violated federal law and binding appellate precedent.
U.S. District Judge Aleta A. Trauger issued the order Oct. 9 after hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by Kiroless Samir Habib Abdelmalak, who had been held in immigration custody since Sept. 18.
In her two-page memorandum and order, Trauger determined that federal authorities had unlawfully detained Abdelmalak without providing the individualized bond hearing required under the applicable immigration statute.
The case, Abdelmalak v. Mullin, was heard in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division.
During the Oct. 9 hearing, government attorneys conceded that Abdelmalak’s detention was governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which establishes a discretionary detention framework for certain individuals facing immigration proceedings.
However, authorities had continued holding him under the mandatory detention provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), without providing the procedural protections required under the applicable law.
The court found that the government failed to provide Abdelmalak with an individualized hearing before his detention, as required by federal law and the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft, 175 F.4th 713 (6th Cir. 2026).
“Thus, the Petitioner is being unlawfully detained by the Government,” Trauger wrote.
The judge granted the habeas petition and declared that Abdelmalak was subject to the discretionary detention framework under § 1226(a), rather than the mandatory detention provisions invoked by immigration authorities.
Trauger also permanently prohibited the government from detaining Abdelmalak again under § 1226(a) without first providing an individualized hearing that satisfies statutory and constitutional requirements.
The order required his immediate release, no later than 2 p.m. Central Time on Oct. 10, with all possessions, property and documents he had when he was taken into custody.
The judge further directed that Abdelmalak be released without additional restrictions on his liberty that had not existed before his Sept. 18 detention.
The government was required to submit a status report by Oct. 13 certifying compliance with the release order.
According to WKRN, Abdelmalak had previously obtained a temporary court order preventing ICE from transferring him outside Tennessee while his habeas petition was pending.
That temporary protection, entered Sept. 25, preserved the court’s ability to consider his challenge while he remained within its jurisdiction.
ICE did not immediately respond to WKRN’s request for comment on the ruling.
The decision comes amid ongoing federal litigation over the government’s authority to detain immigrants without individualized bond hearings.
Federal immigration law distinguishes between mandatory detention under § 1225(b) and discretionary detention under § 1226(a). The distinction determines whether individuals may seek release on bond while immigration proceedings remain pending.
In Abdelmalak’s case, the government acknowledged that the discretionary detention framework applied, but authorities had not provided the hearing required by the statute and controlling Sixth Circuit precedent.
The ruling followed another immigration detention decision issued by Trauger earlier in October involving an Egyptian asylum-seeker whose parole had allegedly not been lawfully terminated before federal authorities detained him.
Although both cases involved challenges to ICE detention practices, they concerned different individuals and distinct legal questions.
On Oct. 23, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a separate 10-7 decision in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Vergara, rejecting a constitutional right to individualized bond hearings for certain immigrants detained under § 1225(b)(2)(A).
The Fifth Circuit majority concluded that the Constitution did not require the government to provide hearings assessing flight risk or danger to the community for the individuals covered by its ruling.
The decision reversed lower court judgments granting habeas relief to three men who had challenged their detention without bond hearings.
The Fifth Circuit’s ruling applies within Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, while the Tennessee case falls under the jurisdiction of the Sixth Circuit.
The Tennessee ruling also rested on a different legal determination: The government conceded that Abdelmalak was subject to discretionary detention under § 1226(a), and the court found that binding Sixth Circuit precedent required an individualized hearing.
The decisions therefore addressed different statutory circumstances and did not necessarily establish conflicting requirements for the same category of immigration detainees.
Abdelmalak’s case illustrates how federal habeas corpus proceedings allow individuals in immigration custody to challenge whether the government has complied with the legal requirements governing their detention.
Trauger’s order required the government to release Abdelmalak and prohibited his renewed detention under the applicable discretionary detention statute without the procedural protections required by federal law.
To comment please go to one of these social media platforms:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DavisVanguard
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/peoples-vanguard-of-davis-inc/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/davisvanguard/
X: https://x.com/davisvanguard
Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/vanguardnewsgroup.bsky.social
Subscribe to the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
