Immigration · Primary-source case analysis

M.A.M.G.: Ankle Monitoring and ISAP Restrictions Can Constitute Habeas Custody

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published August 28, 2026

M.A.M.G. v. Albarran examined whether ICE could add electronic ankle monitoring and regional travel restrictions to two asylum seekers’ existing ISAP supervision without notice, a hearing, or an individualized justification.

The combined restraints satisfied habeas custody

The court did not treat the ankle monitors in isolation. Electronic location tracking, in-person and photo reporting, and movement restrictions together imposed significant restraints not shared by the public generally. A petition seeking removal of those added restraints therefore challenged the fact and duration of custody within 28 U.S.C. section 2241.

The record showed a substantial liberty interest and risk of error

Both petitioners had been released on recognizance and had largely complied with supervision. Their isolated missed submissions were explained and promptly addressed. The government supplied no evidence that the incidents demonstrated flight risk or danger, while the petitioners had no opportunity to explain them to a neutral decisionmaker before the monitors were imposed.

Statutory discretion did not replace constitutional process

ICE argued that it possessed statutory authority to set and modify release conditions. The court explained that statutory authority does not eliminate Fifth Amendment obligations. Applying the Mathews factors, it found that notice and a pre-deprivation hearing were required on this record before imposing the added custodial restrictions.

The writ restored the prior conditions and protected the remedy

The court ordered each petitioner released from the additional custody on the conditions that existed before electronic monitoring was imposed. It also barred re-detention or new custodial conditions without a neutral pre-deprivation hearing and individualized findings, or a material change in circumstances. The order preserved lawful re-detention to execute a valid final removal order after compliance with governing law.

Key takeaways

• An ankle monitor may support habeas jurisdiction when combined with reporting and movement restraints.
• The due-process analysis depends on the actual restrictions, compliance history, asserted risk, and procedures provided.
• A habeas remedy may remove added custodial conditions rather than merely require a later hearing.
• The order did not hold that every ankle monitor is unlawful or prohibit every future lawful re-detention.