California Federal Court Stops ICE from Re-Detaining Immigrant Protected from Removal

In a powerful decision out of the Northern District of California, Judge Edward M. Chen ruled that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) violated federal law and the Constitution when it tried to re-detain a man who had long been living lawfully under supervision. The case Salcedo Aceros v. Kaiser (N.D. Cal., July 2025) reinforces a growing judicial consensus: ICE cannot revoke a person’s supervised release or detain them again without due process, clear notice, and tangible evidence that deportation is possible.

The Story Behind the Case

Mr. Salcedo Aceros, a Colombian national, had been granted withholding of removal years earlier after proving that he would face persecution if sent back to Colombia. As with many individuals protected under the Convention Against Torture, he was released under an Order of Supervision, a legal status that lets people live in the community, work, and report periodically to ICE.

For years, he complied fully with those terms. Yet in the summer of 2025, ICE officers arrested him without warning during what should have been a routine check-in. They gave no written explanation and no hearing, simply asserting that his supervision was being “revoked.”

His lawyers filed an emergency habeas corpus petition, arguing that the re-detention was unconstitutional and that ICE had failed to follow even its own rules.

What the Court Decided

Judge Chen agreed. He held that ICE’s conduct violated both statutory and constitutional limits on post-order detention. Citing the Supreme Court’s decisions in Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) and Clark v. Martinez (2005), he explained that detention after a removal order is lawful only if removal is realistically foreseeable. Because Mr. Salcedo Aceros remained protected from return to Colombia and ICE had identified no third country willing to take him, there was no lawful basis to detain him at all.

The judge emphasized that ICE also violated its own regulations, which require notice, explanation, and an interview before revoking an order of supervision. The agency had skipped each of those steps. Such omissions, he wrote, deprived Mr. Salcedo Aceros of due process, the fundamental right to be told what the government is doing and to respond before losing one’s liberty.

In his order, Judge Chen directed ICE to release Mr. Salcedo Aceros immediately and barred the agency from re-detaining him again unless it first provided written notice and an opportunity to contest any alleged violation.

Why This Case Matters

This ruling is important not only for Mr. Salcedo Aceros but also for thousands of immigrants nationwide who live under supervised release. It confirms that the government cannot use check-ins as traps or rely on vague “policy changes” to return people to detention. Freedom once granted carries a constitutional protection what courts call a “liberty interest.”

Judge Chen’s opinion makes clear that even after a person has been ordered removed, the Constitution still applies. The government cannot bypass fairness, notice, and evidence simply because it finds supervision inconvenient. When ICE fails to follow procedure or cannot demonstrate that removal is truly possible, detention becomes unreasonable, unlawful, and unconstitutional.

How Immigrants Can Use This Case

For non-citizens living under supervision or facing sudden re-detention, Salcedo Aceros v. Kaiser offers a valuable precedent. It can be cited in federal habeas petitions or motions for release to show that:

• ICE must provide written notice and a hearing before revoking supervised release.

• Detention is legal only if removal is reasonably foreseeable, not speculative.

• A record of compliance and community ties strengthens the argument for release.

In plain language, this case tells courts that freedom cannot depend on ICE’s shifting priorities. It depends on facts, law, and fairness — the cornerstones of due process.

Broader Implications

The decision in Salcedo Aceros v. Kaiser adds to a wave of similar rulings across the country — including Duong v. Kaiser and Castellanos v. Kaiser in the same district and Douglas v. Baker in Maryland — all striking down ICE’s recent attempts to re-detain immigrants who cannot be deported.

Together, these cases mark a turning point: courts are reminding ICE that its power to detain is not limitless. The Constitution does not tolerate indefinite imprisonment based on bureaucracy or politics.

For individuals living under orders of supervision, this ruling offers hope — and a legal path forward. If ICE suddenly revokes supervision or arrests someone without notice, they can point to Salcedo Aceros v. Kaiser and demand what Judge Chen upheld: due process and freedom under the rule of law.