US Judge Rules Against Trump’s Mass Detention Policy

2026-02-20 - 14:05

A federal judge has invalidated a key immigration ruling that supported the Trump administration’s policy of placing thousands of migrants in mandatory detention without access to bond hearings, marking a significant legal setback for the government’s immigration enforcement strategy. U.S. District Judge Sunshine Sykes, sitting in Riverside, California, vacated a decision issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals after determining that federal authorities failed to comply with an earlier court order declaring the underlying policy unlawful. In a sharply worded ruling, Sykes accused the administration of attempting to sidestep judicial authority, describing its conduct as “shameless” and stating that officials sought to “continue their campaign of illegal action” by denying detainees bond hearings despite her prior decision. “Respondents have far crossed the boundaries of constitutional conduct,” she wrote. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Department of Justice, which oversees the immigration appeals board, did not immediately respond to requests for comment following the ruling. Under federal immigration law, individuals classified as “applicants for admission” to the United States are subject to mandatory detention while their cases move through immigration courts and are generally ineligible for release on bond. However, as part of President Donald Trump’s broader immigration crackdown, the Department of Homeland Security expanded that definition last year to include certain non-citizens already living inside the country — a departure from long-standing legal interpretation. The Board of Immigration Appeals formally adopted that interpretation in September, prompting immigration judges nationwide to order mandatory detention in affected cases. Although Sykes ruled in December that the policy was unlawful, she initially stopped short of overturning the board’s decision entirely. Her latest order followed guidance issued by Chief Immigration Judge Teresa Riley instructing immigration judges that they were not bound by Sykes’ earlier ruling and should continue applying the board’s interpretation — a move the judge said demonstrated the need for stronger judicial intervention. Sykes also criticized government messaging that immigration enforcement operations primarily targeted dangerous offenders. “Maybe that phrase merely mirrors the severity and ill-natured conduct by the Government,” she wrote, adding that official statements overlooked a “greater, more dire reality.” The decision represents a major legal challenge to the administration’s detention framework and is expected to influence ongoing immigration litigation nationwide as the case proceeds through further court review.