H.J.A.E. v. Warden, Stewart Detention Center - Habeas Corpus
Summary
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia issued an order in H.J.A.E. v. Warden, Stewart Detention Center, applying principles from prior cases to grant a bond hearing for a detained noncitizen. The court referenced docket number 4:26-cv-150.
What changed
This order from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia (Case No. 4:26-cv-150-CDL-CHW) addresses a petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court applies its prior rulings in J.A.M. v. Streeval and P.R.S. v. Streeval, which held that for noncitizens unlawfully present and arrested without inspection, immigration officers or judges have discretion to grant release on bond under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), and mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) is not authorized.
The practical implication of this order is that the respondents are directed to provide the petitioner with a bond hearing to determine eligibility for release. This case highlights the ongoing legal challenges regarding detention policies for noncitizens and the application of discretionary bond hearings. Regulated entities involved in immigration detention should be aware of the court's interpretation of relevant statutes and its reliance on precedent for bond determinations.
What to do next
- Review court order regarding habeas corpus relief and bond hearings for detained noncitizens.
- Assess current detention and bond hearing procedures in light of the court's interpretation of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and § 1225(b)(2).
- Consult legal counsel on potential implications for ongoing cases and future petitions.
Source document (simplified)
Jump To
Top Caption Trial Court Document
Support FLP
CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.
Please become a member today.
Jan. 27, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note
H.J.A.E. v. Warden, Stewart Detention Center, et al.
District Court, M.D. Georgia
- Citations: None known
- Docket Number: 4:26-cv-00150
Precedential Status: Unknown Status
Trial Court Document
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
H.J.A.E., *
Petitioner, *
vs. *
CASE NO. 4:26-cv-150-CDL-CHW
WARDEN, STEWART DETENTION *
CENTER, et al.,
*
Respondents.
*
O R D E R
The Court received Petitioner’s application for habeas corpus
relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pet. (Jan. 26, 2026), ECF No. 1.
The Court may apply Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 cases in
this action. SECT 2254 Rule 1(b) (“The district court may apply
any or all of these rules to a habeas corpus petition not covered
by Rule 1(a) [which addresses petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ].”).
Under Rule 4, if a petition is not dismissed on preliminary review,
then “the judge must order the respondent to file an answer,
motion, or other response within a fixed time, or to take other
action the judge may order.” SECT 2254 Rule 4. Applying Rule 4,
the Court issues the following order.
This case appears to involve the same issues raised in J.A.M.
v. Streeval, No. 4:25-CV-342-CDL, 2025 WL 3050094 (M.D. Ga. Nov.
1, 2025) and P.R.S. v. Streeval, No. 4:25-cv-330-CDL, 2025 WL
3269947 (M.D. Ga. Nov. 24, 2025). In those cases, the Court
concluded that for noncitizens “who are found in the
country unlawfully and are arrested” without having been inspected
by an examining immigration officer, then “an immigration officer
or immigration judge has the discretion” under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 (a)
to grant them release on bond unless a statutory exception applies
under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 (c). J.A.M., 2025 WL 3050094, at 3; P.R.S., 2025 WL 3269947, at *1-2. Mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225 (b)(2) “is not authorized” in such cases. P.R.S., 2025 WL
3269947, at *2.
Based upon the rationale of J.A.M. and P.R.S., Respondents in
this action are hereby ORDERED to provide Petitioner with a bond
hearing to determine if Petitioner may be released on bond under
§ 1226(a)(2) and the applicable regulations. Respondents shall
provide this bond hearing within seven days of today’s order. Once
a bond hearing is provided, Petitioner will have received the
remedy that the Court is authorized to order, and Petitioner should
file a notice of dismissal.
If Respondents in good faith contend that the Court’s prior
rulings in J.A.M. and P.R.S. do not apply here, Respondents should
file an appropriate motion seeking relief from this order and
demonstrating why the Court’s prior rulings in J.A.M. and P.R.S.
do not control the result in this case. If such a good faith
motion is filed, then this order shall be stayed pending the
resolution of that motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 27th day of January, 2026.
s/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
Related changes
Source
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get Federal Courts alerts
Weekly digest. AI-summarized, no noise.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when Middle District of Georgia Opinions publishes new changes.