BOSTON — Chief Immigration Judge Teresa L. Riley told immigration judges nationwide in a Jan. 13 email to deny immigration bond hearings for some people held by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, even after federal judges said the detainees are entitled to them, the American Civil Liberties Union says. The guidance argues the court rulings were declaratory judgments rather than an injunction and that immigration judges should keep following a 2025 appeals board decision, Jan. 20, 2026.
The directive became public in court filings in the Massachusetts case and was highlighted in a Reuters report. The ACLU of Massachusetts said the email showed “the government has deliberately and systematically instructed every Immigration Judge in the country not to comply with final declaratory judgments,” and it reported new denials of immigration bond hearings after the message circulated.
At the group’s request, U.S. District Judge Patti B. Saris scheduled a hearing for Tuesday, Jan. 20, to address the directive. Daniel McFadden, managing attorney at the ACLU of Massachusetts, said the group asked for the conference “to update the court on this troubling development.” The Justice Department, which oversees the immigration courts through the Executive Office for Immigration Review, did not respond to a request for comment.
Immigration bond hearings now hinge on what “binding” means
Immigration bond hearings are custody reviews in immigration court where a judge can decide whether a detained person may be released while removal proceedings continue. In those hearings, the government typically argues the person is a flight risk or a danger to the community, while the person seeks release under conditions, often with a monetary bond. For many detainees, immigration bond hearings are the only chance to avoid months of confinement while their cases move through backlogged courts.
Riley’s email focuses on the difference between an injunction and a declaratory judgment. As summarized in a practice alert from the American Immigration Lawyers Association, Riley wrote that “Maldonado Bautista is not a nationwide injunction and does not purport to vacate, stay or enjoin Yajure Hurtado,” and told immigration judges to keep treating the Board of Immigration Appeals’ precedent as controlling. The alert said attorneys reported widespread denial of immigration bond hearings after the guidance.
The precedent decision Riley cited, Matter of Yajure Hurtado, was issued September 2025 and held that immigration judges generally lack authority to consider bond for certain noncitizens present in the United States without admission and treated as “applicants for admission” subject to mandatory detention.
But lawyers challenging the policy say federal judges have already rejected that reading. In Riverside, Calif., U.S. District Judge Sunshine Sykes issued a December clarifying order in a nationwide class action emphasizing that members remain eligible for immigration bond hearings. In a statement about that ruling, ACLU lawyer My Khanh Ngo said “The court’s order reaffirms our class members’ rights and sends a message that this administration must abide by legal pronouncements.”
A longer fight over detention and immigration bond hearings
The dispute grew out of an enforcement shift that started last summer. A July 2025 memo from ICE leadership reinterpreted detention law so that many people arrested inside the United States — including long-term residents who entered the country illegally — would be treated as “applicants for admission” and held without access to immigration bond hearings, a change described in a July 2025 Washington Post report.
The appeals board later adopted that approach, a move covered in a September 2025 Washington Post report. And as courts fight over the scope of remedies, advocates note the Supreme Court has previously narrowed classwide detention relief and rejected arguments for statutory bond hearings in certain prolonged-detention cases, according to a 2022 Reuters account.
The question now is whether federal judges will issue stronger orders to force compliance, or whether immigration judges will keep denying immigration bond hearings while appeals proceed. Saris is expected to consider what additional relief is needed in the Massachusetts case, while Sykes’ rulings continue to shape the nationwide class action.
