Thousands of Migrants Could Be Released in Major Blow to ...

By Robert Alexander

Senior Crime & Court Reporter

ShareNewsweek is a Trust Project member

A federal judge in California has struck down a Department of Homeland Security detention policy that required most immigrants who entered the United States without inspection to remain in custody for the duration of their removal proceedings.

The ruling, issued by U.S. District Judge Sunshine S. Sykes, could allow thousands of detained migrants to seek release on bond, reshaping key elements of the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement agenda.

Newsweek contacted the DOJ for comment via email outside of normal office hours Wednesday.

Why It Matters

A federal judge’s decision striking down a July 2025 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy that eliminated bond hearings for most immigrants who entered the United States without inspection carries sweeping national implications.

By restoring access to individualized custody hearings, the ruling threatens a central pillar of the Trump administration’s expanded detention strategy—one designed to support 100,000 detention beds and facilitate mass removals—and could open the door for thousands of detainees to seek release.

The court found the policy unlawful and certified a nationwide class of affected noncitizens, concluding that the denial of bond hearings constituted a common injury that could be resolved uniformly.

The outcome marks a significant legal check on the administration’s attempt to broaden mandatory detention through reinterpretation of federal immigration law.

...

What To Know

Background: How the Case Began

The decision stems from a class action brought by four noncitizens arrested during large-scale immigration raids in Southern California in June 2025.

Court filings show that around 2,000 people per day were apprehended during that week, with the four named petitioners held at the Adelanto Detention Center after being denied bond hearings following a change in DHS policy on July 8, 2025.

According to documents filed in the case, the new DHS guidance interpreted anyone arrested in the United States and charged as inadmissible as an "applicant for admission," making them subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) (2)(A) rather than eligible for bond hearings under § 1226(a).

The court rejected this reinterpretation, finding it legally improper.

Why the Court Struck Down the Policy

Judge Sykes rejected the DHS’s interpretation because it conflicted with the structure of the immigration statutes, overturned long-established legal distinctions, and effectively erased the bond-hearing protections Congress created under § 1226(a).

She found that the DHS’s expansive reading of "applicants for admission" improperly treated people already living in the United States as if they were arriving at the border, a move she said would "collapse § 1226 into nonexistence."

The judge held that the law requires a clear distinction between border arrivals governed by § 1225 and interior arrests governed by § 1226, and by granting partial summary judgment, she formally ruled the DHS policy unlawful.

Comparison Table: § 1225(b) (2)(A) vs. § 1226(a) (This distinction is the heart of the case.)

Why the Court Rejected the DHS Detention Policy

A July 8, 2025 DHS policy directed ICE to treat anyone arrested inside the United States as an "applicant for admission" under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) (2)(A)—a classification that triggers mandatory detention and eliminates access to bond hearings.

Judge Sykes ruled that this reinterpretation conflicted with the structure of federal immigration law, which distinguishes between border arrivals covered by § 1225 and noncitizens already living in the country covered by § 1226(a), the statute that permits bond hearings.

In her decision, the judge wrote that the DHS’s approach "collapse[s] § 1226 into nonexistence," improperly stripping individuals of statutory protections and violating long-standing legal interpretations.

By granting partial summary judgment, she declared the policy unlawful and restored access to individualized bond hearings nationwide.

The guidance stated that the department had "revisited its legal position on detention and release authorities" and concluded that these individuals "may not be released from ICE custody."

In the November 20 ruling on partial summary judgment, Judge Sykes rejected the policy and found it unlawful, concluding that the shift deprived affected immigrants of statutory protections previously recognized under federal law.

She also noted that the petitioners’ claims raised significant due-process concerns tied to the denial of individualized custody determinations.

What the Ruling Means Going Forward

Five days later, on November 25, the court issued a separate order certifying a nationwide class of noncitizens "in the United States without lawful status who have entered or will enter the United States without inspection" and who are not otherwise subject to mandatory detention under specific statutory provisions.

The certification allows the earlier ruling to apply to all members of the class rather than only the original petitioners.

The court dismissed government arguments that immigration statutes barred classwide relief, finding instead that the harm caused by the DHS policy—being denied the opportunity for a bond hearing—was "an injury common to the class" and could "be resolved in a single stroke."

Federal Response

Acting Director Todd Lyons stated in an internal ICE memo the administration’s position would now be that immigrants entering illegally "will no longer be able to have bond hearings."

Reuters stated that the policy "appeared to reverse legal standards governing detention for decades" and could apply to "millions of people who crossed the border illegally and are contesting their deportation."

The class action brought by the four noncitizens arises amid significantly expanded detention plans funded through recent congressional appropriations.

ICE’s FY 2026 budget justification shows the administration seeking resources to support "100,000 detention beds," along with substantial increases in transportation and removal operations.

The administration has publicly stated a goal of conducting "1,000,000 removals per year," according to the same document.

The certified class is large: government data indicated that roughly 65,000 people were in immigration detention as of mid-November 2025.

The ruling could therefore open the door for bond hearings for a significant share of detainees now held under the invalidated policy.

Matt Adams, lead attorney for the plaintiffs, said: "Anyone in the country who’s in this position within removal proceedings and is being denied a bond hearing because they first entered without inspection or without being admitted, is now able to get a bond, just like they were for the last 30 years."

The Justice Department has not yet indicated whether it intends to appeal.

For the moment, however, the ruling represents a major legal setback for the administration’s attempts to expand mandatory immigration detention and accelerates a developing judicial conflict over how federal agencies may interpret long-standing immigration statutes.

What People Are Saying

Aaron Korthuis, North West Immigrant Rights Project attorney describing the government’s detention reinterpretation, said: "The government’s new interpretation of bond hearings is flagrantly unlawful…[the policy] is looking to supercharge detention beyond what it already is."

Jason Houser, former Biden administration ICE chief of staff said: "We’re not trying to fix the system—we’re trying to fix one part of the system because there’s political outcomes that [the Trump] administration wants to create."

What Happens Next

The ruling now forces the federal government to decide whether to appeal while requiring ICE to immediately resume bond hearings for a nationwide class of immigrants who had been subject to mandatory detention under the invalidated policy.

With roughly 65,000 people in custody, many will now have the opportunity to seek release, placing new pressure on immigration courts already facing significant judge shortages.

DHS may also need to rewrite or withdraw the July 8 policy, which the court found unlawful, and the decision could complicate the administration’s broader plan to expand detention capacity and accelerate removals.

Request Reprint & LicensingSubmit CorrectionView Editorial & AI Guidelines