On February 18, 2026, Judge Sunshine Suzanne Sykes of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California issued a sharp and incisive major enforcement order in Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz (Case No. 5:25-cv-01873-SSS-BFM)[1]—one that directly targets the government’s continuing effort to deny bond hearings to many detained immigrants who entered without inspection (EWI).
The problem the Court was trying to fix
In 2025, the Maldonado Bautista litigation challenged DHS’s shift toward a categorical “no-bond” posture for certain noncitizens alleged to be “applicants for admission,” even when they were arrested well inside the United States and long after entry. The case resulted in a sweeping class ruling and declaratory relief recognizing that many such detainees should fall under INA § 236(a)—where bond hearings are available—rather than being treated as subject to mandatory detention.
But after the district court’s earlier decisions, immigration judges around the country continued denying hearings anyway—often citing the Board of Immigration Appeals precedent decision Matter of Yajure Hurtado as binding authority.
What the February 18 order does
The February 18 order granted the plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce Judgment and squarely confronted the standoff: if the government’s position is unlawful, it cannot be reintroduced in new wrapping. The Court found that Yajure Hurtado “parrot[s]” the same legal interpretation the Court had already rejected and treated it as “functionally equivalent” to the vacated DHS policy.
“Respondents (DHS, ICE, and the Immigration Courts) have far crossed the boundaries of constitutional conduct. Somehow, even after the judicial declaration of law that the DHS was misguided in its act of legal interpretation that nullified portions of a congressionally enacted statute, Respondents still insist that they can continue their campaign of illegal action. The shameless submission that is Respondents’ Opposition deliberately seeks to erode any semblance of separation of powers. Respondents can only do so in a world where the Constitution does not exist. The Constitution makes no apology in condemning Respondents. With no other option but to uphold its constitutional duty, the Court GRANTS Petitioners’ Motion (to Enforce Judgment).”
Given the government’s continued reliance on that precedent to block bond hearings, resulting in thousands of habeas petitions being filed across the country, the Court concluded further relief was “necessary and proper” and VACATED Yajure Hurtado under the Administrative Procedure Act.
“It is not the executive department’s province and duty to say what the law is. The role of the judiciary is to continue to demand compliance with the law even in the face of outright defiance by the executive. When asked by the Court to articulate any other justification for Respondents’ continued course of action in the event Yajure Hurtado were to be vacated, Respondent indicated they were not aware of anything else that would require IJs (Immigration Judges) to deny bond hearings.”
What the order does:
- The Court ordered classwide notice and reporting. Beyond vacating Yajure Hurtado, the order requires notice to detained individuals who may be class members, including language access requirements—even going so far as to require the government to provide noncitizen class members “with access to a telephone to call an attorney within one hour after the (detained) noncitizen receives the notice.” Immigration Judges are also required to provide Notice to Bond Eligible Class members or confirm the class member received notice at the time of arrest.
- Bond hearings that were denied for lack of jurisdiction should now be an option for detained class members—those who entered the United States without inspection or apprehension and have been residing in the United States. The vacatur order can be submitted with request for a bond hearing.
The bottom line
This enforcement order is a blunt message about separation of powers: executive agencies don’t get to “out-precedent” a federal court’s interpretation of the statute by repackaging the same rationale in a new decision.
However, this decision does not permanently resolve this issue, which is on appeal before the Ninth Circuit and in a number of other circuit courts. The Fifth Circuit has already come out the other way on interpreting the detention statutes, and so members of the Bond Eligible Class will not have the same success in states within the Fifth Circuit (Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi), although they may still pursue habeas petitions seeking immediate release on the basis of violations of due process.
But, for detained immigrants who fit the class definition outside of the Fifth Circuit, the Order should dispel any lingering arguments that immigration courts lack jurisdiction to hold a bond hearing in the first instance.
[1] For more information, including a description of who is a member of the nationwide Bond Eligible Class, see our past blog article: A Final Ruling in the Maldonado Bautista case Opens a Nationwide Path Back to Immigration Bond Hearings for Many “EWI” Detainees | Joseph & Hall P.C.
