This case challenges the mandatory detention of Larysa Kostak, a 50-year-old Ukrainian woman who has lived in the United States for nearly two decades. She fled Ukraine for political reasons and entered the United States without inspection in 2005. No longer living in Brooklyn, New York, her home for the past 20 years, she now sits incarcerated more than 1,000 miles away from her husband, her community, and her church at Richwood Correctional Center in Monroe, Louisiana.

Under a new interpretation of an old law that was previously applied only to people seeking admission at the border, the U.S. government claims that people like Larysa, who have resided for years in the United States, must be locked in mandatory detention. Under this new policy, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) would have the authority to lock up millions of people who were not actually at the border seeking admission when arrested.

On June 26, 2025, Larysa attended a court hearing in her immigration case in New York City. Waiting for her were masked ICE agents, who arrested her and transported her to an overcrowded detention facility in the courthouse building, where she slept on a concrete floor for nine days, with inadequate food and allowances for personal hygiene. On July 4, 2025, she was transferred to a remote Louisiana detention center.

Larysa’s arrest is one of thousands taking place in immigration courts across the country. The U.S. government is luring people to immigration court with the promise that they will be able to argue their case before a judge. Instead, ICE agents are waiting outside the courtroom doors to arrest people and transport them to immigration detention centers.

What is the legal argument in this case?

By applying mandatory detention for persons seeking admission to the U.S. to Larysa, a person who is not seeking admission at the border, ICE violates the plain language of 8 U.S.C. §1225(b), the mandatory detention statute.

ICE is also violating Larysa’s constitutional rights. The U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment guarantees due process to all people at risk of a deprivation of liberty, regardless of immigration status. When the government detains someone, due process requires that detention bear a reasonable relationship to a legitimate purpose, like preventing a risk of flight.

Larysa’s arrest and detention violate her right to due process because they are wholly unjustified. In the time Larysa has lived in the United States, she has been neither a danger to the community nor a flight risk—evidenced by her dutiful appearance at her scheduled immigration court dates.

The U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment requires that a government seizure, like an arrest, have a reasonable justification. Larysa was arrested and detained, along with countless others, not because they became suddenly dangerous or likely to abscond, but as part of a nationwide campaign to ambush people when they attend their immigration court hearings.

What is the status of this case?

Pending in the district court of the Western District of Louisiana.

August 11, 2025

August 8, 2025

July 31, 2025

July 30, 2025