A federal judge in the Central District of California has issued a sweeping rebuke of the Department of Homeland Security's July 2025 detention directive—an unprecedented policy that attempted to deny bond hearings to nearly all immigrants who entered the United States without inspection.
In a series of three orders issued between July and November 2025, U.S. District Judge Sunshine Suzanne Sykes ruled that the policy was unlawful, unconstitutional, and contrary to the plain language of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The rulings have far-reaching consequences: thousands of immigrants previously subjected to mandatory detention are now eligible for release on bond, and DHS may no longer treat long-settled residents as “applicants for admission” for purposes of detention.
The DHS Policy: A Radical Expansion of Mandatory Detention
On July 8, 2025, DHS issued a memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Regarding Detention Authority for Applicants for Admission.” The agency instructed ICE officers that any immigrant arrested in the United States and charged with inadmissibility must be treated as an “applicant for admission,” thereby placing them under mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A).
This re-interpretation was sweeping and unprecedented. It required ICE and immigration judges to deny bond hearings to:
- Individuals who entered without inspection years—or decades—earlier
- Long-term residents with deep U.S. ties
- People with no criminal history
- Anyone arrested within the U.S. interior during enforcement operations.
The practical effect was that millions of undocumented immigrants would become categorically ineligible for bond, regardless of their history or circumstances.
The Case: Four Immigrants Challenge the Policy
The litigation began after large-scale raids across Southern California resulted in the arrest of approximately 2,000 individuals per day—many of whom were sent to Adelanto Detention Center. Four of those individuals became the named petitioners:
- Lazaro Maldonado Bautista
- Ananias Pasqual
- Ana Franco Galdamez
- Luiz Alberto de Aquino de Aquino
Each was charged under § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) (present without admission), requested bond hearings, and was denied by an immigration judge citing new DHS policy. They filed a habeas petition and emergency request for a Temporary Restraining Order.
THE COURT'S RULINGS
1. July 28, 2025 – TRO Granted (Immediate Relief Ordered)
Judge Sykes found that DHS's policy caused “serious questions going to the merits” and violated both the INA and the Fifth Amendment. She ordered DHS to:
- Provide individualized bond hearings OR
- Release the petitioners immediately
The Court rejected DHS's argument that § 1225(b) applied, finding the government's reading “collapses two distinct sections of the INA,” noting that § 1226(a) governs interior arrests and provides robust procedural protections.
2. November 20, 2025 – Partial Summary Judgment (DHS Policy Declared Unlawful)
In a 17-page order, Judge Sykes held:
The DHS Policy Violated Federal Law.
- DHS cannot treat individuals already inside the United States as “applicants for admission” simply because they are charged with inadmissibility.
- The policy contradicts the structure of the INA, which clearly distinguishes between § 1225 (frontline, border-type processing) and § 1226 (interior arrests, where bond hearings are required).
- INA §§ 1252(a), 1252(b)(9), and 1252(e)(3) do not strip federal courts of jurisdiction, contrary to DHS claims.
The Case Was Not Moot.
Even though petitioners had received bond hearings, DHS continued to re-arrest similarly situated individuals. The Court applied the voluntary cessation doctrine, holding DHS could not “evade judicial review by temporarily altering questionable behavior.”
Key Quote:
“Respondents' interpretation runs counter to the plain language of the INA, foundational principles of statutory interpretation, and the INA's statutory scheme.” —Judge Sunshine S. Sykes
The Court therefore invalidated the DHS policy.
3. November 25, 2025 – Class Certification Granted (Nationwide Relief)
Judge Sykes certified a nationwide class—the Bond Eligible Class—consisting of:
“All noncitizens in the United States without lawful status who entered without inspection, were not apprehended upon arrival, and are not subject to §§ 1226(c), 1225(b)(1), or 1231 mandatory detention…”
This ensures nationwide protection for thousands of individuals similarly harmed by DHS's policy.
The Court found:
- Numerosity: Thousands of potential class members
- Commonality: All were denied bond due to the same illegal policy
- Typicality: Named petitioners' claims mirrored the entire class
- Adequacy: Petitioners and counsel capable of representing the class
Thus, the Court authorized uniform declaratory and injunctive relief for every individual improperly classified under § 1225(b)(2)(A).
What This Means Going Forward
1. Immigrants Previously Denied Bond Are Now Eligible
Anyone detained under the July 2025 DHS policy is now entitled to:
- A bond hearing, or
- Release, if DHS cannot justify detention under § 1226(a).
2. ICE May No Longer Use § 1225(b)(2)(A) for Interior Arrests
The ruling reaffirms longstanding law:
Interior arrests fall under § 1226(a), not § 1225.
3. Due Process Protections Are Restored
Under § 1226(a), immigrants have:
- Right to counsel
- Ability to present evidence
- Right to appeal
- Right to seek subsequent bond hearings if conditions change
4. Nationwide Class Protection
DHS may not revive this policy and apply it to others.
Saluja Law's Perspective
This ruling is a monumental affirmation of due process, statutory fidelity, and judicial oversight. The government's attempt to eliminate bond eligibility for virtually all immigrants who entered without inspection—regardless of length of time in the U.S., family ties, or lack of criminal history—was an extreme overreach fully inconsistent with 30 years of immigration jurisprudence.
The federal court's decision restores constitutional balance and ensures that detention decisions remain individualized, lawful, and reviewable.
If you or a loved one were denied a bond after July 2025, or are currently in ICE detention, Saluja Law can help you secure release and protect your rights.