A federal court in Nevada ruled against the Department of Homeland Security’s mandatory detention policy, saying it violates federal law and causes “irreparable harm.” U.S. District Judge Richard Boulware II’s decision is the first class-action lawsuit in Nevada to overturn a DHS policy, and it could affect hundreds of people, allowing upward of 60 people per week to seek release.
What changed
The Trump administration reversed decades of immigration policy last summer when it determined that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) must lock up nearly everyone facing deportation, even if they’ve lived in the country for decades and have no criminal record. The rule, which applies to immigrants who entered the country without inspection and were detained within the U.S., doesn’t just subject more people to detention while they fight deportation but bars them from asking an immigration judge to consider releasing them on bond.
Judge Boulware’s ruling in Jacobo-Ramirez v. Noem blocked this policy in Nevada. The decision would allow noncitizens without lawful status or those who are in removal proceedings in Nevada to seek relief. More than 100 judges nationwide have ruled against the policy, deeming it a violation of due process rights as it prevents people from contesting their detention.
Notice and procedural requirements
By April 7, the government is required to share notices about the ruling in common areas of detention facilities when people are booked into immigration detention. By April 14, facilities must provide forms to people allowing them to challenge their imprisonment in court — known as a habeas petition.
Why it matters
For practitioners representing clients in Nevada removal proceedings, the ruling fundamentally changes the landscape. Before the Trump administration implemented the mandatory detention rule, immigration judges routinely denied bond to immigrants they deemed a danger to the public. The mandatory policy eliminated that individualized review for most noncitizens in the covered class.
The Nevada judgment restores your clients’ right to be heard on bond. Immigration attorneys have already seen bonds being granted that would have otherwise been denied, and the opportunity for someone to be released on bond can make a huge difference in an individual’s life, allowing them to go home to their families and see their kids again while they wait for more developments in their case.
This ruling applies to a specific subset: noncitizens without lawful status who entered without inspection and are in removal proceedings in Nevada. The order does not apply statewide to all removal cases, but it does cover a large population that was previously locked out of bond hearings entirely.
Way forward
For immigration attorneys with Nevada clients:
-
Advise eligible clients of habeas petition rights. If your client entered without inspection, lacks lawful status, and is in removal proceedings, they may file a habeas petition challenging their detention once the April 14 deadline passes and forms become available in detention facilities.
-
Request individual bond hearings. The ruling restores the immigration judge’s duty to consider flight risk and danger to the community on a case-by-case basis. Prepare your briefing on your client’s ties, employment, family, and criminal history (or lack thereof).
-
Monitor implementation. Detention facilities must post bilingual notices and provide template habeas forms by April 14. If your client is not receiving these materials, that may be grounds for additional relief.
-
Watch for further litigation. More than 100 judges nationwide have ruled against mandatory detention, creating a split that may eventually reach the Supreme Court or federal appellate courts. Stay current on 9th Circuit developments and any appeals of Judge Boulware’s decision.
Disclaimer
This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Fola is a software company, not a law firm. You should consult with a licensed immigration attorney before relying on this information for any legal matter. Immigration policy and court decisions can change without notice. Always verify information against the primary source documents and current legal authority in your jurisdiction.