Original Date Announced

Acting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director Todd Lyons issued interim guidance to all ICE employees explaining that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) "has revisited its legal position on detention and release authorities" and had concluded "that section 235 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), rather than section 236, is the applicable immigration detention authority for all applicants for admission."

As a result and "[e]ffective immediately, it is the position of DHS that such aliens are subject to detention . . . and may not be released from ICE custody except by INA § 212(d)(5) parole . . . These aliens are also ineligible for a custody redetermination hearing ('bond hearing') before an immigration judge."

According to the memo, DHS is not taking the position that prior releases of applicants for admission now believed to be subject to mandatory detention under INA § 235(b)(2) should be deemed releases on parole under INA § 212(d)(5).

The ICE policy is similar to a position previously taken by several Immigration Judges at the Tacoma Immigration Court that was challenged in litigation. Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, No. 3:25-cv-05240 (W.D. Wash.). The district court in that case granted a preliminary injunction and ordered relief as to the named plaintiff only.

**Link to case here. Our litigation entries generally report only the initial complaint and any major substantive filings or decisions. For additional information, CourtListener provides access to PACER and all available pleadings. Other sites that track litigation in more detail or organize cases by topic include Civil Rights Clearinghouse, Justice Action Center, National Immigration Litigation Alliance, and Just Security**

Trump 2.0 [ID #1855]

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.07.28 Bautista v. Noem - Order Granting Petitioners' TRO

The District Court for the Central District of California granted petitioners' motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO). The Court found that "Respondents fail to articulate any valid justification, legal or otherwise, for the application of § 1225 to Petitioners as 'applicants for admission,'" thus raising serious questions about the legality of DHS's interpretation of the INA justifying a TRO. The Court enjoined the federal respondents from continuing to detain Petitioners unless it provides them with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within 7 days of its order, and enjoins the federal respondents "from transferring, relocating, or removing Petitioners" from the district during the litigation. Bautista v. Noem, No. 5:25-cv-01873 (C.D. Cal.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.07.28 Bautista v. Noem - Class Action Complaint and Amended Habeas Petition

Immigrants' rights advocates filed a class action lawsuit challenging ICE's new policy of treating all noncitizens who entered the country without inspection and were not apprehended upon arrival as applicants for admission who are ineligible for bond. Plaintiffs also challenge the EOIR practice at the Adelanto Immigration Court of similarly determining that such noncitizens are ineligible for bond hearings. Plaintiffs allege that ICE and EOIR's practices of denying bond and bond hearings to those who entered without inspection and were not apprehended upon arrival violates 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and its implementing regulations, is contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), required notice-and-comment under the APA, and violates the plaintiffs' due process rights by not considering them for bond. Bautista v. Noem, No. 5:25-cv-01873 (C.D. Cal.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.08.13 Opinion and Order - Lopez Benitez v. Francis

District Court Judge Dale Ho ordered the release of Carlos Javier Lopez Benitez, a man who was detained at his immigration hearing. The court first held that Mr. Lopez Benitez was detained pursuant to DHS's discretionary authority under 8 USC § 1226(a). Specifically, it found that DHS consistently treated Mr. Lopez Benitez as subject to detention on a discretionary basis under § 1226(a), and that a proper understanding of the relevant statute “compels the conclusion that § 1225’s provision for mandatory detention of noncitizens ‘seeking admission’ does not apply to someone like Mr. Lopez Benitez, who has been residing in the United States for more than two years.” It then held that his discretionary detention violates due process. Lopez Benitez v. Francis, No. 1:25-cv-05937 (S.D.N.Y.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.08.18 Plaintiffs' Notice of Supplemental Authority - Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock

Plaintiffs in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, No. 3:25-cv-05240 (W.D. Wash.), the early challenge to the Tacoma Immigration Court's practice of denying all requests for bond hearings by noncitizens in removal proceedings who entered the United States without inspection, filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority and Facts in the case. The Notice contains the new ICE interim guidance that is the subject of the original entry as well as copies of multiple federal court decisions in individual habeas petitions that have rejected the position taken by the Tacoma IJs and ICE.

**Link to case here. See litigation note above**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.09.02 Amended Complaint - Mendoza Gutierrez v. Baltasar

The ACLU of Colorado filed a class action lawsuit challenging ICE's policy of denying bond to immigrant detainees. The complaint seeks a bond hearing for the named plaintiff, who was detained in May 2025, and a declaration that it is unlawful for the government to subject others who are similarly situated to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). Mendoza Gutierrez v. Baltasar, No. 1:25-cv-02720 (D. Colo.).

**Link to case here. Our litigation entries generally report only the initial complaint and any major substantive filings or decisions. For additional information, CourtListener provides access to PACER and all available pleadings. Other sites that track litigation in more detail or organize cases by topic include Civil Rights Clearinghouse, Justice Action Center, National Immigration Litigation Alliance, and Just Security**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.09.03 Motion for Class Certification - Mendoza Gutierrez v. Baltasar

The plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class of "all noncitizens in the U.S. without lawful status who are (1) detained by ICE; (2) have or will have proceedings before any immigration court hearing cases within the District of Colorado; (3) whom DHS alleges or will allege have entered the U.S. without inspection; (4) who were not or will not be apprehended upon arrival; and (5) who are not or will not be subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1226(c), 1225(b)(1), or 1231 at the time they are scheduled for or request a bond hearing." Mendoza Gutierrez v. Baltasar, No. 1:25-cv-02720 (D. Colo.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.09.05 BIA Decision - Matter of Yajure Hurtado

The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) issued a decision in the Matter of Jonathan Javier Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA 2025), holding that "[b]ased on the plain language of section 235(b)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) (2018), Immigration Judges lack authority to hear bond requests or to grant bond to aliens who are present in the United States without admission." This decision effectively adopts the position articulated by ICE's July 8, 2025 interim guidance that is the subject of this entry, as well as that of several Tacoma Immigration Judges in recent years that is the subject of challenge in Bautista v. Noem, discussed above.

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.09.19 Order Granting Motion for TRO - Petitioner v. Stamper

U.S. District Judge Stacey Neumann grants a temporary restraining order enjoining the government from removing an Ecuadorian immigrant who alleged in a habeas petition that he is unlawfully detained in Maine without a bond hearing. The man was first detained in January 2025, released, and re-detained in September 2025. Judge Neumann assessed whether "he is detained unlawfully under 8 U.S.C. § 1225" and "instead is entitled to a bond re-determination hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)." The court held he is likely to prevail on his due-process claim that re-arrest without an opportunity for bond was unlawful. Petitioner v. Stamper, No. 2:25-cv-00479-SDN (D. Me.).

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.09.22 Complaint - Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz

The ACLU of Massachusetts and other advocacy groups filed a class action and petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court challenging the arrest and detention practices of DHS and DOJ. The complaint alleges that Defendants are systematically misclassifying immigrant detainees by moving from the statutory authority of 8 U.S.C. § 1226, allowing bond during removal proceedings, to 8 U.S.C. § 1225, which does not allow for bond. The complaint argues that this practice violates detainees' due process rights as well as 8 U.S.C. § 1226, DHS regulations, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

The complaint asks for certification of a class of immigration detainees arrested or detained in Massachusetts, or within the jurisdiction of a Massachusetts immigration court, who have not been admitted or paroled into the U.S. on their most recent entry, are not in expedited-removal proceedings, and do not meet the legal criteria for detention under § 1226 or § 1231. Guerrero-Orellana v. Moniz, 1:25-cv-12664 (D. Mass.).

**Link to case here. Our litigation entries generally report only the initial complaint and any major substantive filings or decisions. For additional information, CourtListener provides access to PACER and all available pleadings. Other sites that track litigation in more detail or organize cases by topic include Civil Rights Clearinghouse, Justice Action Center, National Immigration Litigation Alliance, and Just Security**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.09.30 Order Granting Summary Judgment - Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock

District Judge Tiffany M. Cartwright ruled that the Tacoma Immigration Court’s policy of categorically denying bond to certain detained noncitizens is unlawful. The court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the Bond Denial Class, a group of individuals detained at the Northwest ICE Processing Center who are not subject to mandatory detention. Judge Cartwright found that these individuals are detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which allows for bond, rather than § 1225(b)(2), which mandates detention. The court declared that the current bond denial practice violates the Immigration and Nationality Act, affirming that affected detainees are entitled to individualized bond hearings. The full Order Granting Plaintiffs' Partial Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is here. Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, No. 3:25-cv-05240 (W.D. Wash.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.10.02 Amended Complaint - Lopez Sarmiento v. Crawford

Four immigrant youth filed an amended class action complaint to challenge the government’s detention of individuals with Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) without bond. Each of the named plaintiffs has received or is applying for SIJS and is now being detained without access to a bond hearing on the grounds that they entered the United States without inspection. The amended complaint alleges that noncitizens who previously entered the country, were designated unaccompanied minors, were released to a sponsor, applied for or were granted SIJS, and are now in removal proceedings are detained under INA 236(a)--not INA 235(b)(2)--and are entitled to bond. Plaintiffs bring claims under the INA, its implementing regulations and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Lopez Sarmiento v. Crawford, No. 1:25-cv-01644 (E.D. Va.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above**