Diana Laura Espinosa Castillo v. Kristi Noem, et al.

1 WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Diana Laura Espinosa Castillo, No. CV-25-04867-PHX-KML (MTM) 10 Petitioner, ORDER v. Kristi Noem, et al., 13 Respondents.

15 Petitioner filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1.) The petition presents the recurring issue whether a particular individual is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). District courts have split on this issue as set forth in Zepeda v. Noem, CV-25-4236-PHX-KML (JFM), ECF No. 13 at 2–3 (D. Ariz. Dec. 11, 2025). On December 11, 2025, the Seventh Circuit concluded the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement were “not likely to succeed on the merits of their argument” regarding “mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A).”

22 Castanon-Nava v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 25-3050, 2025 WL 3552514, at *9 (7th Cir. Dec. 11, 2025). And on December 18, 2025, the Central District of California entered judgment in a class action likely covering petitioner declaring “the Bond Eligible Class members are detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and are not subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)” and vacating “the Department of Homeland Security policy described in the July 8, 2025, ‘Interim Guidance Regarding Detention Authority for Applicants for Admission’ under the Administrative Procedure Act as not in accordance □□ with law. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).” Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 5:25-CV-01873-SSS-BFM, 2|| Doc. 94 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025).

3 Based on prior decisions in the District of Arizona, the Seventh Circuit’s opinion, 4|| and the final judgment entered by the Central District of California, respondents must show || cause why the petition should not be granted to the extent that petitioner be released or 6|| provided a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226.!

7 Accordingly, 8 IT IS ORDERED: 9 1. The Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 2) is DENIED.

10 2. Counsel for petitioner must immediately serve the petition upon respondents.

11 3. If not already issued, the clerk’s office must issue any properly completed 12 summonses.

13 4. The clerk of court must immediately transmit by email a copy of this order and the 14 petition to the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona, to the attention of 15 Katherine Branch at [email protected], Melissa Kroeger at 16 [email protected], Lon Leavitt at [email protected], and Theo 17 Nickerson at Theo.Nickerson2 @usdoj.gov.

18 5. Respondents must show cause no later than December 31, 2025 why the petition 19 should not be granted. Petitioner may file a reply no later than January 2, 2026.

20 Dated this 29th day of December, 2025.

Honorable Krissa M. Lanham 24 United States District Judge 28] | Petitioner also filed a motion for temporary restraining order. (Doc. 2.) That motion is rendered moot by issuance of this order to show cause and is denied.

_2-