A federal judge in Fort Myers has ordered Immigration and Customs Enforcement to let Miakel Guerra Morales out of custody, ruling that his post-removal detention has dragged on past what the law allows. Morales, convicted for his role in the 2003 diversion of a commuter plane from Nueva Gerona, Cuba, to Key West, already served roughly 22 years in federal prison. The court told ICE to free him within 24 hours and place him under an order of supervision, even as officials still have no clear plan for where he might ultimately be removed.
Judge Finds No Realistic Removal Plan
U.S. District Judge John E. Steele granted Morales’s habeas petition, concluding that the government had not shown a “significant likelihood” of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. Citing the written ruling, which ordered that "Respondents shall release Guerra Morales within 24 hours," the decision appears in the Middle District of Florida docket.
In the opinion, Steele notes that the government presented no evidence that Mexico or any other country has agreed to accept Morales, despite years in which ICE could have pursued travel documents or a reliable removal destination. Without a concrete receiving country on board, the court found there was simply no realistic removal plan to justify keeping him locked up longer.
What Happened In 2003
The underlying case traces back to a 2003 incident on a DC-3 commuter flight that left Nueva Gerona bound for Havana. Mid-route, a group of Cuban nationals assaulted the crew and forced the pilot to divert the plane to Key West. Morales was among those later identified as hijackers.
Once in U.S. custody, Morales and others were tried in federal court and convicted of aircraft piracy and related offenses. Appellate records indicate the defendants received combined federal sentences that included about 264 months for those counts. That history appears in both the appellate record and the government’s filings in the criminal case.
Release With Supervision, But Re-Detention Possible
Steele’s order does not wipe out the existing removal order. Instead, it tells ICE to either provide the statutory process, including a bond hearing, within ten days or release Morales under supervision. The court makes clear that ICE can detain him again if removal becomes reasonably foreseeable.
The opinion explicitly allows re-detention if ICE later comes forward with a concrete removal plan and a country willing to accept Morales. At the same time, it warns that the immigration statutes do not authorize indefinite civil detention once removal is no longer realistically on the horizon.
Federal Reaction And Coverage
The ruling got a quick and pointed response from the Department of Homeland Security. In a statement to the New York Post, a DHS official criticized the decision and said the agency would continue to seek detention and removal of criminal noncitizens.
Spanish-language and Cuba-focused outlets also ran summaries of the court’s reasoning and the terms of Morales’s release. For South Florida readers, the case lands close to home: a Fort Myers federal ruling scrutinizing years of ICE supervision tied to the agency’s Miami field office.
Why The Court Applied Zadvydas
The legal backbone of Steele’s decision is the Supreme Court’s 2001 ruling in Justia, better known as Zadvydas v. Davis. In that case, the Court held that post-removal detention becomes unlawful when actual removal is not reasonably foreseeable, and it set a presumptively reasonable six-month limit after a final removal order absent strong evidence to the contrary.
Relying on that framework, courts require the government to do more than express intent to remove; officials have to show concrete steps toward deportation and identify a receiving country before extended detention can survive legal scrutiny.
For now, Morales is slated for release under the conditions the court outlined, with ICE retaining the authority to pick him back up if a lawful removal suddenly becomes workable. The order highlights a recurring tension in immigration enforcement: long criminal sentences, complicated international logistics, and constitutional limits on how long the government can keep someone in civil detention when there is nowhere clear to send him.
