A federal judge in Montana ruled that an ICE-detained individual’s Fifth Amendment right to due process was violated when he was detained before receiving a bond hearing. The court ordered his immediate release within 24 hours and directed return of any seized property. The decision reinforces binding precedent in the District of Montana that warrantless ICE seizures must be followed by prompt bond hearings—not indefinite detention pending immigration court.
What changed
On July 7, 2026, U.S. District Court Judge Brian Morris ordered the release of David Cortes Torres, a 20-year-old held in the Cascade County Detention Center after arrest by ICE on June 29 in Bozeman. Cortes Torres was represented by Upper Seven Law, a nonprofit firm whose lawyers argued his right to due process was denied after he was arrested and detained illegally.
The government argued that under U.S. code, Cortes Torres’s detention was mandatory because he is not a U.S. citizen. However, Morris specifically cited the prior Orozco-Ramirez case, noting that Cortes Torres was detained before he was given a bond hearing, which violated his Fifth Amendment right to due process. Morris found that Cortes Torres had no prior criminal record, strong community ties, and was not a flight risk.
Morris ruled that Cortes Torres must be freed within 24 hours, and that if authorities seek to detain him again, prosecutors must provide “clear and convincing evidence” that his detention is warranted.
Why it matters
This ruling closes a due process gap that detention practitioners in Montana and neighboring circuits can exploit. The court rejected the government’s “mandatory detention” statutory argument—a common claim—by holding that even if statutes authorize detention, the Fifth Amendment requires a pre-detention or immediate post-seizure bond hearing before indefinite detention becomes lawful.
For practitioners, the key implications are:
- Warrantless seizure + no bond hearing = per se due process violation. You can challenge detention on constitutional grounds without first litigating immigration status or deportability.
- The “mandatory detention” defense fails. Government attorneys cannot simply cite statute; they must justify each detention’s length and conditions.
- Habeas corpus timing matters. File promptly after seizure to trigger this protection before your client has spent weeks in custody awaiting immigration court.
- Community ties and criminal history are relevant. Build a record of your client’s local roots, employment, and family care duties early—these factored into Morris’s reasoning.
Judge Morris has now issued two such rulings (Orozco-Ramirez and Cortes Torres), establishing de facto binding precedent within the District of Montana. Practitioners with clients detained by ICE in Montana, Wyoming, or Idaho can cite both decisions in federal habeas petitions.
Way forward
If your client is currently ICE-detained:
- File a federal habeas corpus petition immediately (28 U.S.C. § 2241) in the District of Montana (or the applicable district court for your venue). Cite Orozco-Ramirez and Cortes Torres for the per se due process violation.
- Request temporary release and a stay pending habeas decision. Argue that continued detention pending a bond hearing violates due process and that your client poses no flight risk or danger.
- Build a community ties package. Gather employment letters, school records, family care documentation, and letters of support—Morris weighted these heavily.
- Distinguish from removal proceedings. Frame your challenge as constitutional (Fifth Amendment), not immigration-status-dependent. Due process rights attach regardless of deportability.
If you are advising a prospective ICE-detained client:
- Counsel on bond preparation before any enforcement contact. Gather documentation of ties, employment, and family now.
- Maintain clear communication paths. Ensure your client knows to request a lawyer immediately upon seizure and to invoke silence.
Disclaimer
This article is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. It is prepared by a software company, not a law firm. You should consult a licensed immigration attorney to assess your specific situation and to verify this information against the primary court order and applicable law. Federal court decisions can be reversed on appeal, and immigration law and policy can change without notice. Always confirm the current state of the law and applicable precedent in your jurisdiction before relying on any case discussion.