A Nevada federal judge accused ICE of “lawless conduct” for holding 17 detainees in custody for months without affording them bond hearings. The decision marks a significant escalation in a months-long conflict between the judiciary and DHS over mandatory detention policy, and expands a class-action remedy that may affect hundreds of immigrant detainees in Nevada.
What changed
In March 2026, Judge Richard Boulware II determined that DHS’s mandatory detention policies violated federal law and vacated those policies under the Administrative Procedure Act. Ordering the release of 17 detainees earlier this month, Boulware said he would consider sanctions against ICE and officials who defied his July 2 and July 7 orders.
Boulware wrote that the plaintiff detainees had been held for months without explanation, skirting his previous order, noting that “Three months have passed since the (previous) judgment, yet ICE has not conducted an initial custody determination for any Petitioner.” The government also hadn’t proven that the plaintiffs were a danger to others or a flight risk.
ICE cannot re-arrest the released detainees without a hearing before an immigration judge with sufficient notice, and at that hearing, the government must bear the burden of establishing that detention is appropriate by clear and convincing evidence.
After Boulware’s March ruling, the ACLU said it offered reprieve to hundreds of people with immigration cases in Nevada with qualifying criteria, such as proving they entered the country without DHS inspection and not being subject to prior removal orders. The federal government then identified 185 such cases, although the ACLU said the number might be higher.
Why it matters
This decision exposes a critical fault line in detention adjudication. The DHS last year expanded mandatory detention that generally applied to immigrants taken into custody at the border to all detainees, including those taken into custody in the U.S. interior. Boulware’s March ruling already vacated that policy for immigrants who entered without inspection. By July, DHS had not complied—it simply continued detaining individuals in the class, without providing bond hearings.
The judge’s threat of sanctions signals he will not tolerate further delays. For practitioners: if your client entered the U.S. without inspection and was detained by ICE in Nevada (or potentially in the federal district), you now have a pathway to habeas relief on Boulware’s precedent. All but two of the 17 detainees had been released as of Monday, according to the ACLU of Nevada.
The decision also reflects the broader policy collision: the policy change came as President Donald Trump has worked to fulfill a campaign promise of mass deportations. In March, DHS said that ICE had the law and facts on its side but would continue adhering to court decisions until they are struck down by the Supreme Court. That statement—“until they are struck down by the Supreme Court”—signals DHS does not view Boulware’s March ruling as binding precedent to be obeyed immediately. This conflict now runs hot.
Way forward
-
If you represent a detained immigrant in Nevada or the relevant federal district who entered without inspection: File a habeas petition citing Jacobo-Ramirez v. Mullin and Suarez v. Balaam, arguing that mandatory detention is unlawful and that your client is entitled to release pending immigration court proceedings.
-
If your client is one of the identified 185+ cases: Check the detention facility roster to confirm release status. If still detained, contact the ACLU of Nevada or file immediately under the Boulware precedent.
-
If you’re working with ICE in this jurisdiction on bail / custody redetermination: Expect accelerated motion practice and prepare clear-and-convincing-evidence bundles showing danger or flight risk—the burden is now on the government.
-
Monitor appeals: DHS has not stated whether it will appeal Boulware’s July orders to the Ninth Circuit. Watch for government filings that may signal a broader challenge to the March APA vacatur.
Disclaimer
Fola Form is a software company, not a law firm, and this article is not legal advice. You must consult a licensed immigration attorney in your jurisdiction before relying on any statement here. Policy can change without notice and may be reversed, appealed, or superseded. Always verify the current status of this ruling and DHS’s compliance posture against the primary source and recent court docket entries. This article reflects the state of the law as of July 14, 2026.