Fighting Unlawful Immigration Detention in 2026
Federal court is supposed to be where a person can turn when the government has exceeded its lawful authority. In 2026, that principle has become an urgent part of Lal Legal’s daily work.
In the first seven months of this year, attorney Prerna Lal has served as counsel in more than 50 federal immigration matters, including emergency habeas corpus petitions, motions for temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions, Administrative Procedure Act challenges, mandamus actions, enforcement proceedings, attorney-fee litigation, and an appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Many of these cases began with the same fundamental problem: Immigration and Customs Enforcement took away a person’s liberty without first providing meaningful notice or an opportunity to be heard. Some clients were arrested or re-arrested after years of living openly in their communities. Others had previously been released by the government and had complied with every reporting requirement imposed on them. Some had no criminal record. Some were DACA recipients, former TPS holders, asylum seekers, trafficking survivors, or applicants with humanitarian immigration relief pending. One was suffering from end-stage renal disease and required dialysis three times a week.
The government often treated these differences as though they did not matter. We went to federal court because they did.
Dozens of People Released from ICE Custody
The results have been extraordinary. Lal Legal’s 2026 federal detention docket has already produced more than 30 immediate-release or release-producing outcomes, along with numerous orders requiring bond hearings or other constitutionally adequate procedures.
In Majano Mendoza v. Andrews, No. 1:26-cv-01976-DAD-CSK, the Eastern District of California ordered the immediate release of a former TPS holder. The court accepted an argument developed in the habeas petition concerning the constitutional significance of the liberty the government had previously authorized him to enjoy.
In Vilcape Garate v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-cv-01472-DAD-SCR, the court ordered the petitioner released only days after the emergency habeas case was filed.
In Calderon Estrada v. Murray, No. 1:26-cv-04052-MWJS, the district court granted relief and entered judgment after Lal Legal appeared as California federal counsel in a matter referred by an out-of-state immigration attorney.
And in Jimenez Perez v. Andrews, No. 1:26-cv-02422-DAD-AC, the court granted the habeas petition on July 16, 2026, ordered ICE to release the petitioner immediately, and imposed protections against future re-detention without the procedures required by the court.
These were not isolated results. Federal litigation also produced release outcomes for petitioners in Lemus Perez, Barrios Ramos, Rivas Martinez, Cortez Lozano, Carrillo Hernandez, Corrales Villalobos, Quiroz Lopez, Perez Fombona, Almendarez Ruiz, Flores Arbizu, Espinoza Salas, Quiroz Martinez, Perez Velasquez, Rodriguez Morales, Velasquez Mazariegos, Vargas Escalante, Martinez Gabarette, Soberanis Cebrero, Zuniga Zuniga, Sohom Mas, Barrios Pena, Alvarado Cubias, Alvarez-Gonzalez, Montes Herrera, Urias, Texta Lopez, and Mejia Texta.
Every case depended on its own facts, procedural posture, assigned judge, and governing law. Past results never guarantee a future outcome. But taken together, these cases demonstrate what emergency federal litigation can accomplish when a person has been detained without constitutionally adequate process.
Winning More Than Physical Release
Release from a detention facility does not always end unlawful custody.
In Abdeltawab v. Armant, No. 5:26-cv-01520-MWF-DTB, Lal Legal obtained a preliminary injunction resulting in the petitioner’s release. ICE then placed him on electronic monitoring. Lal Legal returned to federal court and argued that the ankle monitor remained a form of custody and that its imposition frustrated the relief the court had already granted.
After briefing and a hearing, the court ordered ICE to remove the monitor. ICE complied. The case ultimately concluded with a judgment granting the habeas petition and restricting the government’s ability to re-detain the petitioner without appropriate process.
That result matters. Freedom is not merely the difference between being inside or outside a detention center. Government-imposed surveillance, movement restrictions, mandatory reporting, and the constant threat of re-arrest can substantially burden a person’s liberty. When ICE attempted to substitute one form of custody for another, we asked the court to enforce the relief it had ordered.
Bond Hearings and Meaningful Process
Other cases produced orders requiring the government to provide a bond hearing or another constitutionally adequate procedure. These matters include Segura Escobar, Anaya Flores, Parias Ramales, Munoz Juarez, Rojo Silvestre, Escobar De Leon, Vargas Cabrera, and Delgado-Lorenzana.
A bond hearing is not the same as release, and it should not be described as one. But it can require the government to justify continued incarceration before a neutral decision-maker instead of treating detention as an automatic consequence of immigration enforcement.
For a person who has been detained without an individualized assessment of danger or flight risk, that procedural protection can be critical.
Federal Counsel for Immigration Lawyers Nationwide
A growing part of this work comes from referrals by immigration lawyers outside California. Those lawyers often continue handling the client’s removal, asylum, bond, or immigration-benefits proceedings while Lal Legal evaluates and litigates the federal claim.
In these matters, Lal Legal does far more than provide a local address or enter a limited appearance. The work may include evaluating federal jurisdiction, identifying the proper custodian and respondents, developing the constitutional and statutory claims, drafting the petition and emergency motions, arranging service, briefing the case, appearing at a hearing, enforcing the resulting order, and pursuing attorney’s fees.
That model produced the release orders in Vilcape Garate, Majano Mendoza, and Calderon Estrada, as well as the release and electronic-monitoring victory in Abdeltawab. It also supports pending litigation in Valle v. LaRose, No. 3:26-cv-03731-LL-AHG, and Nolasco Ventura v. Semaia, No. 5:26-cv-03952-AYP.
Challenging Unlawful Agency Practices
Lal Legal’s federal practice is not limited to detention.
In Li et al. v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, No. 3:26-cv-05950-JD, Lal Legal filed an Administrative Procedure Act challenge to the government’s practice of issuing Notices to Appear charging adjustment applicants with overstaying while their timely filed applications remained pending. The case challenges the broader agency practice, not merely the outcome in a single application.
In Azizi et al. v. Noem, No. 2:24-cv-02959-JDP, Lal Legal represents Afghan nationals challenging prolonged agency inaction involving humanitarian immigration applications. The government produced the administrative records, and the parties’ summary-judgment motions are pending before the Eastern District of California.
In Magaña Baez et al. v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, No. 4:26-cv-00928-PHK, Lal Legal challenged the government’s treatment of the continuous-physical-presence documentation required for adjustment of status by T-visa recipients. After the lawsuit was filed and served, the Department of Justice issued corrected documentation addressing the deficiency USCIS had asserted and providing a basis to seek reopening. This litigation is ongoing.
These cases address a different form of government power: the ability to delay, deny, or destabilize a person’s immigration status through unlawful policies and unexplained agency action.
Taking Detention Issues to the Ninth Circuit
Some issues require appellate review.
In Lania v. Central Valley Annex, No. 1:26-cv-03701-DC-CSK, Lal Legal challenged immigration detention following an arrest where the underlying criminal charges were dismissed. The case raises fundamental questions about conditional liberty, pretextual detention, and whether an arrest alone can become a permanent justification for ICE custody even when the criminal system does not produce a conviction. An interlocutory appeal is pending before the Ninth Circuit as Case No. 26-4049.
Making the Government Pay the Fees the Law Requires
When a person prevails against the federal government and the government’s position was not substantially justified, the Equal Access to Justice Act may permit recovery of attorney’s fees and costs.
Courts have already awarded more than $21,000 in two completed 2026 fee matters arising from this litigation, including $14,297.83 in Rivas Martinez and $7,036.37 in Cortez Lozano. Additional EAJA applications are pending.
Fee recovery matters for more than the lawyers involved. It helps make emergency federal representation possible, reimburses eligible clients where appropriate, and reinforces the principle that individuals should not bear the entire financial cost of correcting unlawful government action.
Why We Keep Filing
Habeas corpus is called the Great Writ because it gives a person a means to challenge unlawful imprisonment. It is not a technical loophole, and it is not an abstract constitutional exercise. For the people and families involved in these cases, it can mean the difference between continued incarceration and coming home.
The volume of litigation this year is not a cause for celebration. Every case represents a person whom the government detained, a family thrown into crisis, and an emergency that should not have required federal intervention. The results are worth recognizing because they show that detention is not beyond judicial review and that government agencies remain bound by the Constitution and federal law.
Lal Legal will continue bringing these cases, working with immigration counsel throughout the country, and asking federal courts to enforce those limits.
If you or your client is detained by ICE, has been re-detained after previously living in the community, or may need emergency federal immigration litigation in California, contact Lal Legal to request a case evaluation.
This post discusses selected matters and is not an exhaustive list of Lal Legal’s federal litigation. Every case is different, and past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. The information provided here is general information and is not legal advice.