In 2025, a major shift in federal detention policy and case law left many people in ICE custody—often long-time U.S. residents—being told they were categorically ineligible for an immigration bond hearing simply because the government alleged they had entered without inspection (“EWI”).
A federal class action, Maldonado Bautista v. DHS (also captioned Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz or v. Noem), challenged that “no-bond” approach and produced a sweeping nationwide ruling that certifies a Bond Eligible Class previously held subject to mandatory detention.
Below is what the final decision did, what it displaced, and—most importantly—who is in the class (and who is not).
When the final decision came out (and why it matters)
After previously certifying a Bond Eligible Class in late November, 2025, the court’s final judgment was entered on December 18, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by the Honorable Judge Sunshine Suzanne Sykes.
The final judgment declared class members’ detention authority and rights and vacated the federal policy that was being used to deny bond hearings nationwide.
A few days later (December 22, 2025), the ACLU issued a public explanation emphasizing that the court entered this clarifying order of final judgment after evidence that immigration judges and government attorneys were continuing to deny bond hearings and claiming they weren’t bound by earlier orders in the case.
What the final judgment accomplished
The December 18, 2025 final judgment accomplished four core things:
- Declared the class is detained under INA § 236(a) (8 U.S.C. § 1226(a))—not INA § 235(b)(2) (8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)), meaning the class can be considered for bond eligibility under § 1226(a) and is not subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2).
- Declared class members are entitled to bond consideration and—if not released by ICE—a custody redetermination (bond) hearing before an immigration judge.
- Vacated DHS’s July 8, 2025 “Interim Guidance Regarding Detention Authority for Applicants for Admission” under the APA as unlawful.
- Entered final judgment on key claims in the Amended Class Complaint and certified them for appeal under Rule 54(b). In other words, the government can appeal, and the litigation may continue—but this judgment is a final, appealable ruling on the central bond-eligibility issue for the class—and therefore binding unless overturned by a higher court.
What the order “overturns” (and what it does not)
It directly nullifies DHS’s nationwide “no-bond” guidance memo
The final judgment explicitly vacates the July 8, 2025 DHS interim guidance that instructed officers to treat many EWI detainees as subject to § 235(b)(2) mandatory detention.
It squarely rejects the legal theory later adopted in Matter of Yajure Hurtado (BIA 2025)
After DHS’s July memo, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) issued Matter of Yajure Hurtado (Sept. 5, 2025), which held that people who had EWI’d into the United States are to be treated as “applicants for admission” subject to mandatory detention under INA § 235(b)(2)(A), meaning immigration judges lacked legal authority to hold a bond hearing or set a bond amount for them. This decision served as the basis for immigration judges to decline to even consider whether someone who had entered the U.S. without being admitted or paroled was eligible for bond and meant that those individuals would remain detained for the duration of removal proceedings.
Maldonado Bautista reaches the opposite conclusion for the class: § 236(a) applies, and bond hearings are available.
While a federal district court decision does not technically “overturn” a BIA precedent, as a practical matter the final judgment is exactly what many detained people need to push back against bond denials that cite Yajure Hurtado.
Who is in the class (Bond Eligible Class)
The court certified a nationwide class defined as follows:
You are in the Bond Eligible Class if you are a noncitizen in the U.S. without lawful status who:
- entered or will enter the U.S. without inspection (EWI); and
- was not or will not be apprehended upon arrival; and
- was not or will not be subject to detention under any of the following mandatory detention statutes at the time DHS makes the initial custody determination:
- INA § 236(c) / 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) (certain criminal/history-based mandatory detention)
- INA § 235(b)(1) / 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1) (expedited removal)
- INA § 241 / 8 U.S.C. § 1231 (post–final order detention)
Who is not in the class
Based on the class definition, people generally are not class members if any of the following is true:
- Lawful status: You have lawful status at the relevant time (the class is limited to those “without lawful status”).
- Apprehended upon arrival: You were apprehended upon arrival (i.e., at/very near the border as an “arriving alien” case).
- Expedited removal: DHS placed you in § 235(b)(1) expedited removal at the time of the initial custody determination.
- Mandatory criminal detention: You fall under § 236(c) mandatory detention (often tied to certain convictions/arrests).
- Final order detention: You are detained under § 241 (post–final order of removal).
Because class membership can turn on timing and how DHS classified you at the initial custody determination, it’s worth having an attorney review your I-213, custody paperwork, NTA, and any bond denial order.
What this means for detained individuals and their families
For people who fit the class definition, the final judgment is designed to restore the pathway to a custody redetermination (bond) hearing before an immigration judge for those ICE will not release.
Members of the Bond Eligible Class who were previously found not eligible for bond may now be eligible for bond.
However—whether immigration judges will swiftly adapt to and accept the final order in Maldonao Bautista is yet to be seen. If an immigration judge still denies a bond hearing by citing no jurisdiction under § 235(b)(2), the main tool to enforce Maldonado class membership is by filing a habeas petition in federal court.
Remember—Maldonado Bautista establishes that covered individuals are eligible for a bond hearing and that the immigration court has jurisdiction to conduct it, but it does not guarantee release. After the hearing, bond may still be granted or denied based on the usual factors—primarily danger to the community and risk of flight from future proceedings.
This article is general information, not legal advice. Detention and bond eligibility are intensely fact-specific, and the government may appeal or change practices. If you or a loved one are detained, our team at Joseph & Hall can evaluate whether the facts of your case support a finding of bond eligibility under current law.
