Nevada judge blocks ICE from mandatory detention for deportation cases
A federal judge in Nevada ruled that the Trump administration’s “mandatory detention” policy cannot be used to lock up everyone facing deportation, blocking ICE from applying the rule to detainees in Nevada as their cases proceed. In the Tuesday decision, U.S. District Judge Richard Boulware II found the policy violates federal law and causes “irreparable harm” to people arrested under it, according to the court ruling described by the Nevada Independent and distributed through the Associated Press.
The decision reverses an immigration policy that the Trump administration adopted last summer. The policy, described as requiring “mandatory detention,” directs ICE to detain nearly everyone facing deportation—even people who have lived in the country for decades and have no criminal record—while they contest removal.
The ruling is framed as a significant procedural shift for immigration cases in Nevada because it came in a class-action lawsuit and overturns a Department of Homeland Security policy. The decision described in the report marked the first time a class-action lawsuit in Nevada has overturned a DHS policy, and it could affect hundreds of people, with the possibility of more than 60 people per week seeking release in Nevada, the report said.
ACLU of Nevada, one of the petitioners in the case, said the ruling could allow potentially thousands of immigration detainees across the state to seek release on bail. The report also said the case could widen access to bond in a setting where advocates have been pushing back against increased local government collaboration with ICE.
How “mandatory detention” works, and what the ruling changes
Under the mandatory detention approach described in the reporting, ICE detains people who entered the country without inspection and were detained in the U.S., including during immigration proceedings. The policy, as described, does not just subject more people to detention; it also bars them from asking an immigration judge to consider releasing them on bond.
The report said more than 100 immigration judges nationwide had ruled against the mandatory detention policy before this Nevada decision, citing due process concerns tied to the ability—or inability—to contest detention. Earlier, the report noted, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had sided with the Trump administration in a similar case, with the effect limited to parts of California.
Michael Kagan, director of the UNLV Immigration Clinic, which represents clients facing deportation, said his team has already seen bond hearings granted this week that would have otherwise been denied under the mandatory detention rule. Kagan added that release on bond can make a major difference for detainees by allowing them to return to their families and see their children while their cases continue.
Court deadlines for detainee notice and habeas forms
The Nevada ruling also included specific steps for implementation. The report said that by April 7, the government is required to share notices about the decision in common areas of detention facilities when people are booked into immigration detention. By April 14, detention facilities must provide forms to detainees allowing them to challenge their imprisonment in court through a habeas petition.
Kagan said that before the Trump administration implemented the mandatory detention policy, immigration judges routinely denied bond only to immigrants they deemed a danger to the public. He contrasted that with the new approach, saying the policy “wasn’t about a danger to the public” and was instead aimed at locking up undocumented immigrants.
The case and the named detainees
The lawsuit was filed in late October by the UNLV Immigration Clinic and the ACLU of Nevada on behalf of Victor Ramirez and Edgar Alcantar, after both were denied bond hearings. The report said both arrived in the U.S. as minors and had no criminal convictions, and it added that both were granted bond hearings in November after the suit was filed.