Federal Appeals Court Upholds Rights of Detained Noncitizens to Bond Hearings

A federal appeals court on Thursday upheld a ruling declaring that the Trump administration is unlawfully denying bond hearings to thousands of people arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in New England.

In 2025, the federal government abandoned its 29-year understanding of a 1996 law and announced that millions of noncitizens living in the United States would have no opportunity to ask for release on bond if detained by ICE. This new guidance defies decades of government practices, federal law, and fundamental due-process protections. It also exacerbates longstanding problems with immigration detention, including overcrowding, medical neglect, inadequate nutrition, and more. Last night, the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a District Court ruling finding the new policy unlawful, reasoning that the federal government’s interpretation violated the relevant statutory text and congressional intent.

"This ruling affirms that the Trump administration cannot unilaterally rewrite federal statutes to suit its political agenda," said Adriana Lafaille, managing attorney at the ACLU of Massachusetts. "This is especially important for matters of fundamental fairness, like the ability to seek release from detention. The federal government must follow the law, provide bond hearings to class members, and allow those who pose no danger or flight risk to be released while immigration courts decide their cases."

With Thursday’s ruling, seven appellate courts and hundreds of District Court judges have now issued rulings holding that the Trump administration’s new policy of subjecting noncitizens living in the country to categorical detention without a bond hearing is unlawful.

“I am gratified that the First Circuit upheld the rule of law, affirming what we have known since 1996: Immigrants, regardless of how they entered our country, are entitled to bond hearings. I am in awe of our client's courage to fight for what is right, securing not only his freedom but that of hundreds of other immigrants in New England,” said Annelise Araujo, founding principal and owner at Annelise Araujo Law.

“We are pleased that the court is vindicating the rights of immigrants unlawfully detained in Maine and throughout New England,” said ACLU of Maine Legal Director Carol Garvan. “The government’s cruel mandatory detention policy stripped people of the chance to seek their freedom while indefinitely separating them from their loved ones, communities, and jobs. The policy also upended decades of standard civil immigration procedures, violating the clear language of federal law. The court's order today is clear: no administration is above the law. The government cannot arrest and detain people indefinitely without providing them with a hearing in front of a judge.”

The petitioner and class in Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, the ACLU, the ACLU of New Hampshire, the ACLU of Maine, Annelise Araujo Law, Foley Hoag, Anderson & Kreiger, and the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinic.

BACKGROUND

The original complaint in this case was filed in September 2025 on behalf of Jose Arnulfo Guerrero Orellana and a class of similarly situated individuals. In October, the court granted a preliminary injunction and ordered a bond hearing for Mr. Guerrero Orellana, who was later released on bond. Later that month, the court certified a class of people arrested by federal immigration officials inside the United States and held in New England detention facilities. In December, the court granted partial summary judgment and rejected the government’s novel and erroneous statutory interpretation.

As disclosed in subsequent court filings, the government’s chief immigration judge later instructed her colleagues to ignore declaratory judgments like the one entered in this case. Immigration judges have continued to systematically deny bond hearings to people arrested by ICE within the United States who are alleged to have entered without inspection, no matter how long the person has been in the country. This policy violates the plain language of the federal detention statutes and denies fundamental due process rights to potentially millions of people.

Read the opinion here.