Judge Nunley addresses TRO motion challenging petitioner’s detention under Fifth Amendment

Petitioner filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) challenging his detention as a violation of the Fifth Amendment. The motion is pending before Chief District Judge Troy L. Nunley as of May 6, 2026.

Respondents oppose the TRO, arguing that Petitioner was initially detained under a warrant and is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) due to a qualifying criminal conviction.

They also assert that Petitioner is now under a final order of removal, making his continued detention likely mandatory during the 90-day removal period under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2).

Petitioner’s detention began around April 9, 2026. Respondents note that he has been detained for less than one month, which weighs against the claim that his detention is unlawful at this stage.

The dispute centers on whether the mandatory detention statutes justify holding Petitioner without bail during removal proceedings and the removal period, or whether his constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment are being violated by this detention.

The case is active, but the docket number and court have not been disclosed. The filings referenced include the initial petition (ECF No. 1), the TRO motion (ECF No.

2), and the respondents’ opposition (ECF No. 9). The court’s minute order on May 6, 2026, reflects that the motion is under consideration but does not indicate a ruling yet.

The key legal question is whether mandatory detention under the cited immigration statutes overrides the Fifth Amendment due process protections claimed by Petitioner. The case tests the limits of detention authority in immigration enforcement, especially when a final removal order is in place but removal has not yet occurred.

The next step will likely be a ruling on the TRO motion. The court’s decision will determine whether Petitioner remains detained pending removal or gains temporary relief. This ruling will shape how the court balances statutory detention mandates against constitutional challenges in immigration cases.