A federal judge reprimanded the government of Donald Trump for violating due process in the case of the citizen Cuban Roberto Francisco Franco Rodríguez, concluding that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detained him and revoked his supervised release without adhering to either the Constitution or the internal procedures of the agency itself.
However, the court did not order his immediate release and instead gave ICE until April 3 to conduct the required interview; if this does not occur, he must be released.
The decision was issued by federal judge Kyle C. Dudek of the Middle District of Florida in a 22-page order.
According to the ruling, although ICE did issue a notice of revocation, it did not conduct the required "informal interview" after detaining Rodríguez, thereby depriving him of the opportunity to respond and contest the decision, as mandated by the agency's own regulations.
Dudek summarized the case with a powerful statement: "Rodríguez has proven that a constitutional violation has occurred: the government cheated and denied him the due process he was entitled to."
The case revolves around a Cuban who arrived in the United States in 1980 and later obtained legal permanent residency.
That status, however, was revoked following a conviction for methamphetamine trafficking, and an immigration judge ordered his deportation from the country.
As the Cuban government refused to accept him back for years, Rodríguez remained in the community for over two decades, but under ICE supervision.
An unexpected twist
The situation changed last year when Cuba agreed to accept him. In November, during a routine ICE check, agents detained him without prior notice and revoked his supervised release, citing a "high likelihood" of deportation in the near future.
From there, Rodríguez filed a writ of habeas corpus arguing that the agency had violated both his constitutional rights and its own regulations.
The Cuban defendant argued before the court that ICE deprived him of his liberty without providing adequate notification or a real opportunity to contest the action.
To this end, he invoked the Accardi doctrine, which requires federal agencies to adhere to their own procedures when making decisions that affect individual rights or interests.
According to this stance, a unilateral administrative revocation was not sufficient; the agency was required to provide a minimal procedural space before or immediately after the detention.
The government responded that the court lacked jurisdiction and that the new detention was legally justified, given that Rodríguez was still subject to a final deportation order and that his deportation had become much more likely following Cuba's willingness to accept him.
But Dudek dismissed those arguments and determined that Rodríguez did indeed have a legitimate interest in the supervised release he had enjoyed for years.
In one of the passages of the order, the judge openly questioned the actions of the administration.
He noted that the government's response was revealing "for its silence," as it did not mention "any hearing, any informal interview, or any immediate forum" where Rodríguez could contest his sudden detention.
Instead, Dudek wrote, the Executive shielded itself behind its "broad discretion" and vaguely referred to a paper review expected to take place approximately three months later.
The due process
The magistrate emphasized that this scheme does not meet due process requirements.
According to the ruling, it stated that a late review, months after the detention has taken place, offers no comfort to someone who has already been deprived of their freedom.
He added that even the ICE's own regulations acknowledge that revoking a person's parole—especially after decades of compliance—requires a much greater procedural rigor than a silent and unilateral decree.
Despite that conclusion, the judge did not order the immediate release of the Cuban.
Dudek argued that, given that his deportation to Cuba is now imminent, it was appropriate to compel the government to provide the required procedural guarantees before deciding on a permanent release.
That's why he stipulated that ICE conducts the informal interview before April 3; if it does not, then it must be released.
The case is set against a backdrop of increasing conflict between the courts and the immigration policy of the Trump administration.
Judges have reacted increasingly harshly to what they consider procedural irregularities in the application of immigration laws, especially when agencies detain individuals without providing hearings or other basic guarantees.
Meanwhile, government officials have responded by accusing the judges of being "activists" and of obstructing the official immigration agenda.
Filed under: