Clinton-Appointed Judge Frees Hijacker

A Clinton-appointed federal judge has ordered a convicted plane hijacker freed from immigration detention because the government could not prove it can deport him anytime soon.

Story Snapshot

A Cuban man who hijacked a passenger plane to Key West in 2003 was ordered released from U.S. immigration custody.
Federal Judge John E. Steele ruled that keeping him locked up was unlawful because deportation is not “reasonably foreseeable.”
The judge used a Supreme Court case, Zadvydas v. Davis, which limits how long the government can detain immigrants after a removal order.
Immigration agents must now supervise the hijacker in the community while still trying to find a country that will take him.

Convicted Plane Hijacker Ordered Out of ICE Detention

Cuban national Maikel Guerra Morales helped hijack a passenger plane in 2003 from Cuba’s Isla de la Juventud and forced it to land in Key West, Florida. During the midair hijacking, crew members were assaulted with knives, putting every person on board at risk. Guerra Morales was convicted in federal court and served more than twenty years in a United States prison for his role in the crime. After finishing his sentence, Immigration and Customs Enforcement took him into custody in December 2025 to deport him.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement held Guerra Morales for months while trying to remove him from the country. A final removal order had been in place for more than three years, yet immigration officials still did not have travel documents or an accepting country lined up. Instead of sending him back to communist Cuba, authorities explored sending him to Mexico or another country but showed no proof that any government had agreed to take him. With no clear path to removal, his attorneys filed a habeas corpus petition asking a federal court to order his release.

Judge Says Indefinite Immigration Detention Violates the Law

Federal Judge John E. Steele of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida reviewed the case and concluded that the government had failed to show a “significant likelihood” that Guerra Morales could be deported in the “reasonably foreseeable future.” In his written order, Judge Steele stated that the law does not allow the government to keep someone locked in a cell indefinitely just because the deportation process is stuck. He emphasized that officials had more than three years since the removal order, and over six months of renewed detention, yet still did not have a concrete plan.

Judge Steele based his ruling on the Supreme Court decision Zadvydas v. Davis from 2001, which limits how long the government can detain immigrants after a final removal order when no real path to deportation exists. In that case, the Supreme Court said immigration detention beyond six months raises serious constitutional problems if deportation is not likely soon. Under that precedent, once six months pass, the burden shifts to the government to prove that removal is realistically possible in the near future, rather than leaving people in legal limbo for years.

Release Under Supervision Raises Public Safety Concerns

After reviewing the evidence, Judge Steele granted Guerra Morales’s habeas corpus petition and ordered Immigration and Customs Enforcement to release him within twenty-four hours. The order did not clear his record or cancel the removal order; instead, it directed that he be freed under strict supervision. Guerra Morales left detention with an electronic ankle monitor and must follow immigration supervision rules, including check-ins and limits on travel. If he violates those conditions, he can face criminal penalties and be locked up again.

This decision fits a pattern in immigration law where courts step in once detention after a removal order stretches beyond six months and the government cannot show that deportation is truly possible. Advocates say these rulings protect due process and prevent the government from using endless detention as a substitute for solving tough diplomatic problems. Many Americans, however, see a dangerous gap: even serious foreign criminals can end up walking free inside the United States when other countries refuse to take them back. That tension between public safety and legal limits now sits at the center of Guerra Morales’s case.