This case challenges the mandatory detention of Ousmane Savane, a 22-year-old asylum seeker. 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 Ousmane, 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.

Ousmane came to the United States to seek safety in 2023. He was initially detained by ICE, but later released when the government found that he was not a danger to the community or at risk of absconding from his immigration court hearings. Since then, Ousmane has attended all of his immigration court hearings as scheduled. But when he showed up to a court hearing on his asylum application in New York City on August 12, 2025, masked ICE agents arrested him and locked him in immigration detention in the Orange County Jail in Goshen, New York.

Ousmane’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 Ousmane, 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 Ousmane’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.

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

The U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment requires that a government seizure, like an arrest, have a reasonable justification. Ousmane 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 Southern District of New York.

June 12, 2025