Maldonado Bautista v. DHS

In early June of 2025, DHS raided the Los Angeles area and detained, among countless others, Lazaro Maldonado Bautista, Ana Franco Galdamez, Ananias Pascaul, and Luiz Alberto De Aquino De Aquino (Plaintiffs), each of whom has lived in the United States for years and even decades. On July 8, 2025, DHS issued a policy that reclassified noncitizen residents of the United States who entered without inspection, like Plaintiffs, as subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A), a statute that until then only applied to those “seeking admission” at the border. DHS’ new legal interpretation broke away from the statutory framework, implementing regulations, and three decades of understanding and practice that noncitizens like Plaintiffs are subject to discretionary detention under § 1226(a), with the opportunity for release on bond.

As such, Plaintiffs sought class certification of noncitizens harmed by these agency policies and practices denying them bond, as well as declaratory relief that establishes that class members are subject to detention under § 1226(a).

A federal judge in the Central District of California granted class certification, found the DHS policy unlawful, and declared that class members are subject to detention under § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2). When the Government continued to disregard the court’s declaration of law, insisting that immigration judges were bound by the Board of Immigration Appeals decision, Matter of Yajure Hurtado, that subjected noncitizens to § 1225(b)(2), Plaintiffs sought to enforce the court’s judgment. This motion was granted and the court vacated Matter of Yajure Hurtado.

Since, the Government has appealed these orders. And in late March 2026, the Ninth Circuit issued a stay pending appeal. As a result, the nationwide class order and the Yajure Hurtado vacatur are not in effect. For now, only those detained in the Central District of California can request bond based on the Maldonado Bautista case.

Maldonado Bautista and the rest of the class’s detention without the opportunity for release on bond are indicative of a larger campaign to rewrite law in service of the Trump administration’s mass deportation agenda. However, as the district judge wrote, “[i]t is not the executive department’s province and duty to say what the law is.” The ACLU remains steadfast in our effort to vindicate the class members’ rights on appeal.