A federal judge ordered an alleged MS-13 enforcer released from immigration custody because the government skipped the most basic step: proving he must be jailed.
Story Snapshot
- A California federal judge granted a habeas petition and ordered immediate release.
- The judge required a new custody hearing where the government must prove danger or flight risk.
- Homeland Security says the man is an MS-13 member wanted for aggravated murder in El Salvador.
- Due process in civil detention, not deportation merits, drove the court’s order.
What the judge actually ordered and why it matters
The court found immigration officials held David Antonio Aviles Perez without an individualized danger or flight-risk decision under the law. The judge granted a writ of habeas corpus and ordered his immediate release. The order also set a clear rule for any attempt to jail him again. Before redetention, an immigration judge must hold a hearing under section 236(a). The government must prove danger or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence, not hunch or headlines.
This ruling did not decide his deportation case or clear him of foreign charges. It answered a narrower question: can the government keep him locked up without first meeting the Constitution’s basic test for civil detention. The court said no. That standard lines up with a long trend in federal courts. Judges often step in when immigration custody drags on without a real hearing. They then require a prompt hearing and shift the proof burden to the government.
What Homeland Security is saying about the threat
The Department of Homeland Security says Aviles Perez is a member of the MS-13 gang, wanted in El Salvador for aggravated murder, and previously arrested in California for assault with a deadly weapon, drug possession, and petty theft. The agency argues that releasing him puts communities at risk. Those claims explain why Homeland Security wants him in custody while removal moves forward. They do not, by themselves, replace the due process the court required.
Homeland Security repeated the point in later statements. The department again tied him to MS-13 and warned of danger if released back into California neighborhoods. That message aims at public safety. The legal problem is different. Civil detention still needs a lawful basis. Courts require the government to carry the load at a hearing when detention stretches. That is how due process checks the power to jail first and justify later.
Due process is not a loophole; it is the lock on government power
Federal courts have long held that when immigration detention becomes prolonged, due process demands a real hearing. The rule is simple and tough: the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that a person is dangerous or a flight risk. Judges do not give a free pass to anyone. They force the government to show its work before taking a person’s liberty for months on end. That is how our system treats civil detention, not as punishment without trial.
Some officials blasted the judge as “activist.” That charge is more slogan than law. The order tracks many other cases where courts required a bond hearing and put the proof burden on the government. The Constitution’s demand is even-handed. It applies to people we fear and people we favor. American conservative values hold that power must meet limits, and the state must justify taking liberty. If the evidence is there, the government should win at the hearing. If not, it should not jail first and ask questions later.
What happens next and what to watch
The next step is a custody hearing before an immigration judge. The government must present evidence of danger or flight risk that meets the clear and convincing standard. Evidence could include records of prior arrests, foreign warrants, and any verified gang ties. The defense can contest those claims and offer conditions that manage risk, like monitoring or third-party supervision. The judge then decides if detention is needed or if release with conditions works.
Two outcomes are likely. If the government brings strong, specific proof, detention continues. If the case relies on labels without solid facts tied to this person, the judge can order release with strict terms. Either way, the process now fits the Constitution. That balance protects the public and guards liberty. It is not soft on crime. It is hard on careless power. That is how a free country should handle even its most feared defendants.
Sources:
nypost.com, apps.cacd.uscourts.gov, fpdcdca.org, cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov
