Mounting Legal Challenge to Trump-Era “No Bond” Policy for Immigrants
A recent decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has solidified a Trump administration policy of mandatory detention for immigrants, sparking a legal battle over due process and judicial discretion. The policy, initially implemented through a July memo, removes the ability of immigration judges to grant bond to individuals facing deportation, effectively mandating detention throughout their removal proceedings.
The BIA ruling stemmed from the case of a Venezuelan immigrant who initially qualified for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) but lost that status after the Trump administration terminated the programme – a decision currently being challenged in court. The board resolute that individuals “present in the united States without admission” must be detained for the entirety of their legal proceedings. This interpretation equates long-term U.S. residents wiht those recently crossing the border, possibly leading to swift deportation without the opportunity for release on bond.
The policy’s impact is already being felt.Advocates report that individuals with no criminal record, consistent compliance with ICE check-ins, and even pregnant or breastfeeding women are being subjected to mandatory detention.
The Department of Homeland security (DHS) celebrated the BIA decision, with spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin calling it a “big win” for ICE attorneys, enabling them to detain individuals until deportation. though, legal experts and advocates argue the ruling severely restricts judicial discretion. Claire Trickler-McNulty, a former ICE official, explained that the decision essentially gives ICE sole authority to determine who is released from detention if they entered the country illegally.The policy is facing legal challenges, including a class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central district of California. The lawsuit argues the no-bond policy violates federal statutes and constitutionally protected due process rights, citing previous rulings by federal judges who found bond denials unlawful.
The implementation of this policy coincides with broader changes within the immigration court system. These include the firing of judges and the Pentagon’s identification of military lawyers and judges to temporarily serve on the bench, all occurring amidst increased funding for immigration detention and enforcement authorized by Congress.
The case of “Z,” a mother of two U.S. citizen children who has lived in the U.S. for two decades, exemplifies the policy’s consequences. She was arrested during a raid in Los Angeles County – home to an estimated 1 million undocumented immigrants – while receiving treatment for breast cancer. Initially denied bond and forced to interrupt her medical care, she was eventually released after a habeas case was filed. Advocates like those at the National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJIC) report increasingly “horrific” detention conditions and a deliberate effort to discourage individuals from fighting their cases.
Unless overturned by the federal circuit court,the BIA’s decision will remain the “law of the land,” according to attorneys,further solidifying the Trump administration’s approach to immigration enforcement.