Case Explained: BADAR KHAN SURI v. DONALD TRUMP

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Filed: 2026-07-23 The fourth-circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the Government’s motion to dismiss Badar Khan Suri’s habeas corpus petition, holding that the Eastern District of Virginia possessed proper jurisdiction and that no provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) stripped the court of subject matter authority. The court ruled that jurisdiction was established under two exceptions to the default habeas rules: the “unknown custodian” exception, because Suri’s location and immediate custodian were undisclosed due to rapid, secret transfers across state lines that prevented counsel from filing in the district of confinement; and the exception articulated in Justice Kennedy’s concurrence in *Rumsfeld v. Padilla*, which applies when the Government moves a detainee to make it difficult for counsel to file a petition or engages in forum shopping. Furthermore, the court held that 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(g), 1252(b)(9), and 1252(a)(5) did not bar review because Suri’s claims challenged his detention and conditions of confinement as unconstitutional retaliation for protected speech and due process violations, which are legally distinct from the Government’s decision to commence removal proceedings or any final order of removal. The court also affirmed the district court’s use of the All Writs Act to issue an injunction barring Suri’s removal while the petition was pending, finding this necessary to preserve the court’s jurisdiction and prevent the frustration of its proceedings given the Government’s intent to deport Suri before judicial review could occur. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.