United States: After determining that an Indian national’s legal challenge was plausible enough to go on, a federal court in California ordered US immigration authorities to provide justification for the detention.

On December 24, the US District Court for the Southern District of California issued the order, requesting that the government reply to a habeas corpus petition that Indian national Naveen Naveen had filed, challenging the legality of his ongoing immigration detention.

The court said in his ruling that the petition had enough potential value and shouldn’t be rejected too soon. As long as a habeas petition presents a legally cognizable claim and does not explicitly demonstrate that the petitioner is not entitled to relief, it may proceed in accordance with federal regulations.

According to court documents, Naveen, an Indian national, entered the country illegally from Mexico on April 18, 2023. Shortly after crossing the border, he was arrested by Customs and Border Protection and then freed on an Order of Release on Recognizance.

He was charged as an alien present in the United States without admission or parole on the same day that immigration officials handed him a Notice to Appear in immigration court.

Naveen was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement on November 3, 2025, at a prearranged ICE check-in, according to the petition. ICE has determined that he is not eligible for release on bail because he is subject to mandatory detention under section 1225(b)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Naveen contests that reading. He contends that section 1226(a) of the Act, which permits release on bond or conditional parole while immigration procedures are ongoing, should instead regulate his imprisonment.

Judge Andrew G. Schopler said in his ruling that the challenge satisfies the requirements necessary at this point in the litigation. The court said that hasty dismissal is inappropriate “as long as a petition has any potential merit,” citing prior appellate guidelines.

The judge also cited an increasing number of decisions from federal courts across that have looked at comparable custody cases. In several of those instances, courts have determined that section 1226(a), rather than section 1225(b)(2), regulates detention in similar situations, or they have granted relief after concluding that petitioners were likely to prevail on the merits.

A number of comparable rulings from federal courts in New York, California, Nevada, and Washington were cited in the judgment. It pointed out that the vast majority of views on the matter have either questioned the government’s interpretation of the Act or ruled in favor of the prisoners.