Immigration Lawsuit Targets Denial of Bond Hearings

Case Overview: A class action lawsuit alleges the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice are denying bond hearings to thousands of immigrants by misclassifying detainees under a statute that requires mandatory detention.

Consumers Affected: Immigrants who were arrested inside the U.S. and detained without an opportunity for a bond hearing.

Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts

A coalition led by the American Civil Liberties Union has filed a class lawsuit alleging that thousands of immigrants detained inside the United States are being denied bond hearings. The case claims that federal agencies are misclassifying detainees under the wrong statute, stripping them of rights long recognized in immigration courts.

Lawsuit Claims Immigrants Misclassified, Stripped of Rights

For decades, people arrested within the country during immigration enforcement have been processed under 8 U.S.C. § 1226. That statute allows detainees to request a bond hearing, where a judge decides whether release is appropriate.

The lawsuit says that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Justice (DOJ) recently began applying 8 U.S.C. § 1225 instead. That statute, intended for people stopped at the border, requires mandatory detention with no opportunity for bond. 

Attorneys argue this reclassification unlawfully expands detention powers and deprives immigrants of due process protections.

ACLU Calls Policy a Constitutional Breach

Civil liberties lawyers argue the government’s shift violates the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee that no person can be deprived of liberty without due process of law.

“All people in the United States are entitled to due process without exception,” said Daniel McFadden, managing attorney at the ACLU of Massachusetts. “When the government arrests any person inside the country, it must justify that detention before a judge. Our clients and others like them are being denied that safeguard.”

The lawsuit claims this policy results in arbitrary detention, leaving people jailed for weeks or months without an opportunity to appear before an immigration judge.

Federal Courts Push Back Against New Detention Rules

The reclassification issue first surfaced in Tacoma, Washington, where immigration judges began applying § 1225 to detainees arrested inside the country. In April 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington ruled that this practice was likely unlawful, ordering a bond hearing for a detainee who had been held without review.

Despite that ruling, DHS extended the practice nationwide. Several federal courts in Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts have already rejected similar arguments, yet the Board of Immigration Appeals issued a September decision instructing judges to follow the new classification.

Plaintiff Represents Thousands in New England

The lead plaintiff, Jose Arnulfo Guerrero Orellana, has lived in the United States for more than ten years. He is a husband and father who now seeks a bond hearing to determine whether his detention is justified. His attorneys say his experience mirrors that of many immigrants across New England who are facing the same denials.

“The people affected by this policy are neighbors, friends, and family members,” said Annelise Araujo, founding principal at Araujo & Fisher LLP. “They should have the opportunity to ask a judge for release instead of being held indefinitely.”

Detention Rules Rewritten

Congress established the current detention framework in 1996 through the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. That law placed people arrested inside the United States under § 1226, allowing access to bond hearings except in certain criminal or national security cases.

By applying § 1225 instead, DHS now places detainees in the same category as people apprehended at the border, where mandatory detention applies. Plaintiffs argue this shift undermines decades of settled practice and vastly expands the reach of detention powers without congressional approval.

Courts and Legal Aid Systems Strained by Policy

Without bond hearings, the only way detainees can challenge their custody is by filing individual habeas petitions in federal court. Attorneys say this process takes longer, keeps people in detention for extended periods, and strains already burdened court dockets.

“Federal courts have already ruled that misclassifying detainees under § 1225 is unlawful,” said Max Brooks, an attorney with the ACLU of Maine. “Yet DHS continues to apply this practice, putting thousands at risk of indefinite detention.”

Other Lawsuits Challenge Immigration Detention Practices

The Massachusetts complaint is part of a larger wave of litigation over detention policies. In August, immigrants and advocacy groups filed a separate lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia accusing DHS and DOJ of using courthouse arrests and expedited deportation tactics.

That lawsuit claims the agencies are dismissing pending removal proceedings without notice, arresting individuals as they appear for hearings, and placing them into accelerated deportation procedures that offer far fewer protections. Plaintiffs argue these tactics dismantle long-standing safeguards and undermine access to fair hearings.

In the denied bond hearings case, the plaintiff is are seeking class certification covering individuals detained under § 1225 after being arrested inside the country. Attorneys argue the government’s policy violates not only constitutional protections but also the Administrative Procedure Act by bypassing proper rulemaking.

Case Details

• Lawsuit: Jose Arnulfo Guerrero Orellana v. Antone Moniz, Superintendent, Plymouth County Correctional Facility, et al.
• Case Number: 1:25-cv-12664-PBS 
• Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts

Plaintiffs' Attorney:

• Jessie J. Rossman, Adriana Lafaille, Daniel L. McFadden, and Julian Bava (American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Massachusetts, Inc.)
• My Khanh Ngo and Michael K.T. Tan (American Civil Liberties Union Foundation)
• Gilles R. Bissonnette, SangYeob Kim, and Chelsea Eddy (American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of New Hampshire)
• Carol J. Garvan and Max I. Brooks (American Civil Liberties Union of Maine Foundation)
• Anthony D. Mirenda, Christopher E. Hart, and Gilleun Kang (Foley Hoag LLP)
• Annelise M. Jatoba de Araujo (Araujo & Fisher, LLC )
• Sameer Ahmed and Sabrineh Ardalan (Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program, Harvard Law School)

What are your thoughts on immigration detention policies? Share your perspective on this lawsuit below.