This case challenges the mandatory detention of Carlos Ventura Martinez, a longtime Maryland resident who left his birth country of El Salvador in 2013 during the height of uncontrolled violence and gang warfare. Throughout his 12 years living in Maryland, he has been a pillar of his community and an unwavering support to his family, working long hours as a painter, paying his taxes, and returning home every day to raise his three sons.

On June 17, 2025, Carlos was detained as a collateral arrest in an immigration raid while on his way to work. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers transferred him to a Louisiana detention center, where an immigration judge ruled that he was not a flight risk and set a bond for his release from detention. ICE appealed, and the Board of Immigration Appeals revered the release order, finding that Carlos must be held in mandatory detention.

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 Carlos, who have resided for years in the United States, must be locked in mandatory detention. Under this new policy, ICE claims the authority to lock up millions of people who were not actually at the border applying for admission when arrested.

What is the legal argument in this case?

By applying mandatory detention for persons seeking admission to the U.S. to Carlos, 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 Carlos’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 be justified by a legitimate purpose, like preventing a risk of flight.

Carlos’s detention violates his right to due process because it is wholly unjustified. An immigration judge already found that he is not a danger to the community nor a flight risk, ordering his release on bond.

What is the status of this case?

On October 22, 2025, the district court granted Carlos a temporary restraining order, finding that he is likely to succeed on his argument that the plain language of 8 U.S.C. §1225(b), the mandatory detention statute, does not apply to him, a long-time U.S. resident. It ordered the government to to provide Carlos with the ability to post bond in accordance with the IJ’s original determination. Carlos paid the bond and returned home.

On October 24, 2025, the government gave notice that it is appealing the district court order to the 5th Circuit.