On February 18, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted a motion to enforce judgment in Lazaro Maldonado Bautista et al. v. Ernesto Santacruz Jr. et al., a nationwide immigration detention class action challenging the Executive Branch’s post–July 2025 repositioning of detention authority for certain interior apprehensions.
Over the past year, immigration detention practice has been reshaped by a rapid sequence of agency policy shifts, Board precedent, and increasingly fragmented federal court responses. The flashpoint is a foundational classification question: When DHS detains a noncitizen in removal proceedings, is the detention governed by?
Imagine being ripped from your family, locked away for months without a chance to argue your case, all because of a bureaucratic twist in immigration policy. That’s the reality for thousands in U.S. detention centers today.
In Matter of Siniauskas, the BIA held that driving under the influence (DUI) is a serious adverse factor in bond hearings regarding danger to the community.
This article discusses Secretary Kelly’s border memo as it pertains to the expansion of expedited removal, the expansion of immigration detention, and credible fear interviews.
An immigration judge can rely on direct and circumstantial evidence in determining whether an alien should be denied bond for posing a danger to the community.
