Background
Dr. Badar Khan Suri, a J-1 research scholar at Georgetown University, was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers following social media posts opposing the war in Gaza. The government moved him rapidly across multiple states and detention centers, including Virginia, Texas, and Louisiana, while withholding his location from his family and counsel. Suri filed a habeas petition in the Eastern District of Virginia, claiming his detention violated the First Amendment and Due Process Clause. The government moved to dismiss, arguing the district court lacked jurisdiction because Suri was no longer detained in Virginia.
The court’s reasoning
The Fourth Circuit held that the district court had jurisdiction under two exceptions to the default habeas rules. First, the unknown custodian exception applied because Suri was held in an undisclosed location by an unknown custodian at the time the petition was filed, making it impossible for counsel to file in the district of confinement. Second, the exception articulated in Justice Kennedy’s concurrence in Rumsfeld v. Padilla applied because the government’s purpose in removing Suri was to make it difficult for his lawyer to know where to file the petition. The court found the government’s rapid transfers and contradictory explanations constituted forum shopping. The court also rejected the government’s argument that immigration code provisions stripped the district court of subject matter jurisdiction.
This case is a prime example for why the unknown-custodian exception exists.
Suri v. Trump (Suri IV), 2025 WL 1806692, at *5
The dissent
What it means going forward
The ruling ensures that noncitizens detained in secret or moved rapidly across jurisdictions retain access to federal habeas review in the district from which they were removed, preventing the government from using transfers to insulate detention decisions from judicial scrutiny.