Judge denies Helena man’s petition for release following immigration arrest 

A federal judge in Missoula Tuesday denied a Helena man’s petition for release after immigration officers detained him earlier this month, citing a lack of jurisdiction over the case. 

During a hearing last week, attorneys for Christopher Martinez Marvan argued that he should be released because racial profiling led to his arrest, violating the Fourth Amendment. Helena police and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers were searching for two Venezuelan men with outstanding warrants when they pulled over Martinez Marvan, a Mexican national, on July 1. 

Attorneys representing the federal government maintained during the hearing that Judge Dana Christensen does not have jurisdiction over the case and that it should be moved to immigration court. Assistant U.S. Attorney Ryan Weldon said even if the court had jurisdiction, Martinez Marvan is not being detained illegally because the traffic stop was valid based on the vehicle’s expired registration. 

In his ruling Tuesday, Christensen did not comment on the validity of Maritnez Marvan’s detention. Along with denying the petition for release, Christensen lifted his previous order forbidding Martinez Marvan’s removal from Montana and the United States and dismissed the case. Martinez Marvan was most recently being held at the Cascade County Detention Center in Great Falls. 

“If the Court lacks jurisdiction — which is the situation here — the Court is powerless to act, regardless of what the Court thinks about the merits of the case,” Christensen wrote. 

Martinez Marvan’s attorneys from nonprofit law firm Upper Seven Law told Montana Free Press they disagree with the judge’s order and plan to appeal.

RELATED

Attorneys: Helena man unlawfully detained due to racial profiling ahead of traffic stop 

Attorneys for a man detained by immigration officers in Helena argued during a hearing in federal district court that he should be released because racial profiling led to his arrest.

by Katie Fairbanks 07.10.202507.11.2025

“We’re disappointed in the court’s ruling,” said Molly Danahy, the firm’s litigation director, in a statement. “The habeas clause of the constitution is meant to provide relief from unlawful detention by the executive. Deferring to the executive immigration machine under these circumstances contravenes the purpose of the Fourth Amendment and of habeas corpus. We look forward to appealing this decision to the Ninth Circuit.” 

Christensen’s order cited the “zipper clause” in U.S. immigration law, which consolidates review of claims arising from removal proceedings into one action in the court of appeals after exhausting the administrative process. 

During the July 10 hearing, Danahy said case law shows that review doesn’t preclude the right to habeas corpus unless there is an acceptable substitute. The review of the final removal order does not provide an acceptable substitute because it does not provide relief from detention. Someone could be detained indefinitely waiting for proceedings, she said.  

In his order, Christensen said the “threshold question” for the court was whether Martinez Marvan’s detention arose from removal proceedings initiated by the government.

On July 10, attorneys for the government submitted the warrant for Martinez Marvan’s arrest based on his immigration status and a notice to appear in immigration court in Tacoma, Wash. Christensen said that, along with Weldon’s statement during the hearing that proceedings had begun, shows the court lacks jurisdiction over the case. Cases cited by Martinez Marvan’s attorneys did not convince the judge otherwise, he said. 

“While the Court takes allegations of racial profiling and constitutional violations seriously, ‘[Petitioner] cannot bypass the immigration courts and proceed directly to district court. Instead, [he] must exhaust the administrative process before [he] can access the federal courts,’” Christensen wrote. 

Martinez Marvan can raise these constitutional arguments in immigration court, Christensen said. 

Upper Seven’s appeal of Christensen’s decision to the Ninth Circuit Court is separate from the immigration proceedings, Danahy told MTFP. Martinez Marvan has different legal representation for those proceedings, she said.