Minnesota-based federal district court judges are now split on how to apply the recent appeals court ruling on illegal alien habeas corpus cases.
The habeas cases seek the immediate release of illegal aliens detained by ICE, pending deportation proceedings. Almost 1,200 such cases have been filed since the beginning of 2026. Nearly all have been successful.
On March 25, the 8th circuit court of appeals issued a ruling that clarified that the applicable law “shall be detained” applied, contrary to the interpretation of most local district judges.
I’ve been tracking the dozens of habeas cases filed since then to see how local judges would react. In the cases decided so far, judges have used different means (technicalities, “due process” arguments, etc.) to reach the same result.
Until this week.
Judge Paul Magnuson denied a habeas petition (26-cv-2072) from a Guatemalan woman, citing the 8th circuit decision for support. In his brief order, he notes that the law is constitutional and dismisses her due process and technical arguments.
This was her second habeas petition before Judge Magnuson. The Judge had denied her January attempt (26-cv-349) using the same criteria, but without the benefit of the 8th circuit decision.
Judge Magnuson is semi-retired (senior status), having been a Ronald Reagan (!) appointee, back in the day. He does not get many case assignments.
Here are the habeas cases we’re tracking, in search of patterns.
