- The ACLU filed a federal habeas action on September 10, 2026, seeking release for Beata Siemionkowicz.
- ICE has detained the green card holder at Campbell County Detention Center since August 2025.
- The petition says the government has not shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that she is a flight risk or danger.
The ACLU filed a federal habeas action September 10, 2026, asking a Kentucky court to release Beata Siemionkowicz after more than one year in immigration detention. ICE has held her at the Campbell County Detention Center since August 2025.
Siemionkowicz is a lawful permanent resident from Poland who has lived in the United States since 1995. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.
Free toolCSPA Age-Out Calculator Online
The filing seeks her immediate release or a new bond hearing. At that hearing, the government would have to justify continued detention.
Bethany Baxter, an ACLU of Kentucky staff attorney, said the groups want the court to restore the ordinary allocation of responsibility in detention proceedings.
“We are asking the federal court to restore normal procedure and require the government to show that our client should be detained – not place that burden on her.”
The dispute follows a bond decision by a Memphis immigration judge. The judge denied bond after apparently treating Siemionkowicz as responsible for proving that she was not a flight risk.
The federal complaint asks the district court either to order release or to require another hearing before an impartial immigration judge. The filing names the jailer of the detention center and several federal immigration officials as respondents.
The case turns on who must justify continued detention
The complaint says the government has not established, by clear and convincing evidence, that Siemionkowicz presents a danger or a flight risk. It characterizes the continued custody as a Fifth Amendment due process violation and raises habeas corpus issues.
Habeas proceedings allow a detained person to ask a federal court to examine the legality of custody. Here, the filing challenges both the length of detention and the way the bond decision assigned the burden of proof.
The groups say immigration law placed the burden on Siemionkowicz to prove that she was not a public-safety risk. They argue that approach improperly shifted the responsibility away from the government.
The complaint states:
“Petitioner has been detained for over 12 months, even though Respondents have not established by clear and convincing evidence that she is a danger to the community or a flight risk—a violation of her Fifth Amendment right to be free from detention without due process.”
That argument asks the federal court to examine more than the bond result itself. It also challenges whether the government supplied the required justification for holding her for this length of time.
A 1995 arrival and an August 2025 arrest frame the dispute
Siemionkowicz is identified in the filing as a native and citizen of Poland. She is a Chicago-area woman and has lived continuously in the United States since 1995.
ICE took her into custody at her daughter’s home in August 2025. She has remained detained since then.
The detention location is in Kentucky, while the immigration bond decision came from a Memphis immigration judge. The federal case now proceeds in the Eastern District of Kentucky.
The Illinois and Kentucky affiliates brought the action together. Ed Yohnka is listed with the Illinois organization, while Eric King is listed with the Kentucky organization.
Baxter also described the detention in constitutional terms:
“Our constitutional system – and the protections it demands – make clear that the burden for explaining an oppressive, destructive, ongoing detention is on the government, not the individual the government wants to punish.”
The Eastern District of Kentucky will decide the next step
The requested remedies give the court two paths. It could order Siemionkowicz released, or it could require a new bond hearing at which the government must explain why custody should continue.
The filing does not seek a routine administrative review alone. It asks a federal court to address the claimed due process violation and the handling of the burden at the earlier hearing.
A ruling on the petition would determine whether she remains detained while the immigration proceedings continue or receives another opportunity to seek release. The case names the detention center’s jailer and federal immigration officials as respondents.
This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified immigration attorney about your specific case.
