Category
Procedural & Doctrinal Pivots
The structural rulings that govern the immigration habeas docket: jurisdiction and venue, the "zipper clause," class certification, EAJA fee shifting, and the BIA precedent decisions that triggered a nationwide surge in § 2241 filings.
Make the Road New York v. Mullin: The D.C. Circuit Lets Nationwide Expedited Removal Stand
In January 2025 the Executive expanded expedited removal to the full extent Congress allows — anywhere in the country, for anyone who cannot prove two years of continuous physical presence. The district court stayed it on due-process grounds; the D.C. Circuit vacated that stay.
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights v. Mullin: A Standing Lesson for Anyone Suing Over a Memo
Three organizations won a stay of the Huffman Memorandum and an ICE email directing officers to place parolees in expedited removal. The D.C. Circuit vacated it — not on the merits, but because the plaintiffs had left untouched the regulation that made their members removable anyway.
Petrova v. Hyde: Forum, the Immediate-Custodian Rule, and What Happens When ICE Moves the Petitioner
A Harvard researcher detained at the border and transferred from Vermont to Louisiana tested the immediate-custodian rule. The court kept jurisdiction where the petition was filed, ordered her release, and later held that customs officers had no authority to cancel her visa.
The Habeas Surge of 2025: Eight Thousand Petitions and a Ninety-Seven-Percent Win Rate
Federal § 2241 immigration habeas filings rose roughly thirty-six-fold between 2024 and 2025, from approximately 222 to approximately 8,000. The reported district-court win rate was approximately 97 percent. This essay surveys the structural causes, the doctrinal landscape, and what the surge means for habeas practice going forward.
Matter of Q. Li and Matter of Yajure Hurtado: The BIA Precedents That Triggered the Habeas Surge
Two BIA precedent decisions in 2025 reclassified long-resident EWI noncitizens as “applicants for admission” subject to mandatory § 1225(b) detention and held that immigration judges lack authority to grant them bond hearings. The decisions are not Article III rulings, but they are the doctrinal pivot that produced an estimated 8,000 federal habeas filings in 2025.
Riley v. Bondi: The Thirty-Day PFR Clock Is Not Jurisdictional
The Supreme Court held that the thirty-day deadline for filing a petition for review under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) is a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule. The decision is small in scope but consequential for the habeas docket: missed PFR deadlines no longer foreclose all judicial review.