A federal judge rejected the government’s request last week to extend the deadlines in an immigration-related case due to the lapse in congressional funding, reminding the U.S. Department of Justice that constitutional rights are at stake.

“The Government is constitutionally obligated to provide due process to Petitioner,” wrote U.S. District Court Judge Gordon P. Gallagher in an Oct. 2 order. “Indeed, Federal Law indicates the urgency of decision in cases such as this.”

Due to federal rules governing immigration cases, the filings in Manuel Moya Pineda’s case are protected from public view. However, Gallagher’s order briefly described that Moya Pineda is alleging a violation of his constitutional and statutory rights by being held in immigration detention in the absence of a hearing to determine if he meets the criteria for release.

Gallagher, a Joe Biden appointee, noted such claims are “not novel” and that courts have “almost universally held” that petitioners like Moya Pineda are entitled to a hearing. He pointed to a recent decision from U.S. District Court Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney, which concluded the government wrongly believed it had the obligation to detain a man who was actually entitled to a bond hearing.

Moya Pineda filed a petition for “habeas corpus” on Sept. 19, a longstanding legal tool for challenging one’s confinement. On Sept. 25, Gallagher temporarily barred the government from removing Moya Pineda from Colorado and ordered the Justice Department to explain why Moya Pineda did not deserve a release hearing before an immigration judge.

Days later, congressional funding lapsed, and a government shutdown ensued. Justice Department attorney Leslie Schulze sought an extension of time to respond. She explained she had been furloughed and that government employees generally “are prohibited by law from working, even on a voluntary basis, except in very limited circumstances, ‘including emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property.'”

“The Court is sympathetic to Respondents’ Counsel’s circumstances, which also impact the Court,” wrote Gallagher. “In related cases, the Court has granted various relief related to the lapse in appropriations. Nonetheless, it is not clear that the circumstances apply here or, in any event, warrant an extension while Petitioner remains incarcerated without a hearing.”

He pointed to the Justice Department’s contingency plan for a shutdown, which cited a “national emergency” on immigration and indicated that employees who “process immigration cases and appeals involving detained respondents” would continue working.

“The Government’s own publications indicate that, notwithstanding the lapse in appropriations, it can grant Petitioner the requested hearing due to the declared emergency,” Gallagher wrote. “Further, as (Moya Pineda) argues, ‘Defendants’ choice to fund and exercise its incarceratory functions while pausing funding for its obligation to defend decisions related thereto is no reason to delay their response’.”

The case is Moya Pineda v. Baltasar et al.