A federal appeals court ruled that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed that the Tacoma Immigration Court was unlawfully denying people the chance to be released on bond to fight their deportation cases in the community, where some have lived for years. The 2-1 decision overturns a policy affecting thousands of detained noncitizens across the Ninth Circuit—nine western states, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands.
What changed
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a prior ruling from Tacoma-based U.S. District Court Judge Tiffany Cartwright. The underlying case, Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, challenged the Tacoma Immigration Court’s practice—adopted by the Trump administration as national policy in July 2025—of denying bond hearings to noncitizens apprehended in the interior who have no admission record.
The named plaintiff, Ramon Rodriguez Vazquez, lived in Grandview in Yakima County until 2025, where he owned a home and had no criminal history. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers detained him at his home with a warrant and brought him to the detention center in Tacoma to face removal proceedings. Tacoma Immigration Judge John Odell denied him a bond hearing.
The Ninth Circuit held that noncitizens apprehended in the interior fall under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)—the discretionary detention statute—rather than § 1225(b)(2) (mandatory detention for those arriving at the border or without inspection). The ruling provides thousands of people the chance to get a bond hearing, whereas before this, the only way for people in the class to get a bond hearing was to file a habeas petition in federal court, but the majority of detained people do not have an attorney who can file a habeas petition.
Why it matters
This decision dismantles the Trump administration’s July 2025 memorandum directing ICE that all noncitizens “present in the United States who have not been admitted” must be held in mandatory detention without a bond hearing. Under the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, immigration judges must now afford detained noncitizens in the Ninth Circuit an individualized bond hearing where they can present evidence of ties to the community, lack of criminal history, and other factors demonstrating they are not a flight risk or danger.
The appeals court’s decision applies to everyone locked up in immigration-detention centers in the Ninth Circuit, which covers nine western states, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. Practitioners representing detained clients at the Northwest ICE Processing Center (Tacoma), and elsewhere in the Ninth Circuit, can now demand bond hearings under § 1226(a), with bond review available under 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(d).
The Ninth Circuit opinion noted that the circuit courts are divided on whether immigrants detained in the U.S. are subject to mandatory detention, and the panel expects the Supreme Court to take up this question next year. Until a Supreme Court ruling, the Ninth Circuit’s holding binds all immigration judges and ICE officers within its jurisdiction.
Way forward
-
If you represent a detained client in the Ninth Circuit who was apprehended in the interior (not at a port of entry): Request an individualized bond hearing immediately if one was denied. Cite Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock (9th Cir. 2026) and demand the immigration judge consider § 1226(a) relief.
-
If your client is in the Bond Denial Class (certified by the district court): Contact the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project to determine whether class-member status may entitle your client to relief, including reopening of removal proceedings or retroactive bond consideration.
-
Monitor Supreme Court developments: Expect the Supreme Court to take up this question next year. The Fifth Circuit held the opposite way in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi (Feb. 2026), creating circuit split. A Supreme Court reversal could vacate the Ninth Circuit’s ruling.
-
Document the detention timeline: Preserve evidence of when and where your client was apprehended (interior vs. border), entry history, and ties to the community. These factors are now central to bond eligibility under § 1226(a).
Disclaimer
This article is for informational purposes and is not legal advice. The information here reflects a recent federal court ruling and does not constitute legal representation. Immigration law is complex, and outcomes depend on individual circumstances, jurisdiction, and evolving case law. Consult a licensed immigration attorney or accredited representative about your specific situation. Policy and court precedent can change without notice; verify all information against the primary source linked above and current agency guidance before relying on it in legal proceedings.