R.D.T.M. v. Wofford et al, No. 1:2025cv01141 (E.D. Cal. 2025)

The United States District Court in the Eastern District of California granted a preliminary injunction in immigration removal proceedings for minor T.M., ordering her release. The District Court offered the following language in support:

“Petitioner R.D.T.M. is a noncitizen who entered the United States in 2023 as an unaccompanied minor. After entry, she was briefly detained by immigration officials but then released to the care of a sponsor after immigration officials determined that she was neither a danger nor a flight risk. Since then, she has lived with her family in Minnesota, graduated high school, gained lawful work authorization, worked in childcare services, and volunteered at a church in her community. However, notwithstanding immigration officials’ prior determination that she posed neither a flight risk nor a danger, and the lack of any evidence of a change in these
circumstances, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) agents re-detained her on September 1, 2025.

When the government is the nonmoving party, “the last two Winter factors merge.” Baird v. Bonta, 81 F.4th 1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2023) (internal citations omitted). Faced with a choice “between [minimally costly procedures] and preventable human suffering,” as discussed above, the Court concludes “that the balance of hardships tips decidedly in [petitioner’s] favor.” Hernandez, 872 F.3d at 996 (quoting Lopez v. Heckler, 713 F.2d 1432, 1437 (9th Cir. 1983)).

The public interest also weighs in petitioner’s favor. “The public has a strong interest in upholding procedural protections against unlawful detention, and the Ninth Circuit has recognized that the costs to the public of immigration detention are staggering.” Diaz, 2025 WL 1676854, at *3 (citing Jorge M.F. v. Wilkinson, No. 21-CV-01434-JST, 2021 WL 783561, at *3) (N.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2021); see also Index Newspapers LLC v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 977 F.3d 817, 838 (9th Cir. 2020) (“It is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional rights.”) (citing Padilla, 953 F.3d at 1147–48).

In conclusion, the Court finds that the requirements for issuing a preliminary injunction are met. Respondents may not re-detain petitioner unless the government proves by clear and convincing evidence at a bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker that petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the community.”