Margarito Castanon Nava v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

── Margarito Castanon Nava v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Date: May 05, 2026 Category: General In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-3050 MARGARITO CASTAÑON-NAVA, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Defendants-Appellants. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 1:18-cv-3757 — Jeffrey I. Cummings, Judge. ____________________ ARGUED FEBRUARY 3, 2026 — DECIDED MAY 5, 2026 ____________________ Before KIRSCH, LEE, and PRYOR, Circuit Judges. LEE, Circuit Judge. In 2018, Plaintiffs filed this suit against the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Immigra- tion and Customs Enforcement (“Defendants”), alleging that they violated 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2) by arresting noncitizens without reason to believe that they were likely to escape be- fore warrants could be obtained. To resolve the lawsuit, in 2022, Defendants and Plaintiffs entered into a Consent Decree that was negotiated over the course of two different 2 No. 25-3050 administrations. In it, Defendants agreed, among other things, to comply with § 1357(a)(2) when making warrantless arrests and issue a “Broadcast Statement of Policy” affirming “the underlying laws and policies applicable to all arrests ef- fected under 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2).” Dkt. 155-1 at 5, 6, 17. 1 In exchange, Defendants obtained a dismissal with preju- dice and release of all related claims, “avoid[ing] the substan- tial expense, inconvenience, and distraction of further pro- tracted litigation ... and finally put[ting] to rest and termi- nat[ing]” the action. Id. at 2. Defendants do not challenge the validity of the original Consent Decree or the authority of the district court to enter it. Instead, Defendants appeal two orders the district court entered on October 7, 2025, and November 13, 2025. As to the former, Defendants object to the district court’s decision to ex- tend the Consent Decree by 118 days due to Defendants’ sub- stantial noncompliance with its terms. As to the latter, De- fendants take issue with the district court’s order that they re- lease 13 class members, as well as approximately 200 addi- tional individuals, whose arrests (in the district court’s words) “potentially” violated § 1357(a)(2). 2 In December 2025, Defendants filed a motion to stay the orders pending appeal, which we denied in part and granted in part. See Castañon-Nava v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048 (7th Cir. 2025). After the benefit of full briefing and 1 “Dkt.” refers to the docket number in the district court record. 2 At oral argument on February 3, 2026, Plaintiffs’ counsel represented that the number of potential class members is now “fewer than 200.” Oral Argument at 21:29. No. 25-3050 3 oral argument, we now affirm the October 7 order’s 118-day extension of the Consent Decree and affirm in part and re- verse in part the November 13 order. I. Background In 2018, Plaintiffs filed this class action against the Depart- ment of Homeland Security (“DHS”), Immigration and Cus- toms Enforcement (“ICE”), and various federal officials, alleg- ing that they were arresting noncitizens without a warrant in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2). This provision provides, in relevant part: Any officer or employee of the Service authorized un- der regulations prescribed by the Attorney General shall have power without warrant ... to arrest any alien in the United States, if he has reason to believe that the alien so arrested is in the United States in violation of [any law or regulation made in pursuance of law r