(UNITED STATES) The American Civil Liberties Union filed a class-action ACLU lawsuit on September 22, 2025, accusing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) of broad due process violations in immigration detention. The filing targets what the ACLU says is a system-wide practice of misclassifying people to block them from asking an immigration judge for bond hearings — especially those arrested only for entering the country.
The group argues the policy puts many at risk of long detention with no fair chance to ask for release. The case challenges actions the ACLU says have spread nationwide since late 2022, after a U.S. District Court in Washington found a similar approach “likely illegal.”
Core allegation: misclassification denies bond hearings
The complaint says ICE, with support from immigration courts, has barred many detainees from the normal process that allows a person to request a bond hearing. In those hearings, a judge decides whether the person can be released while their case moves forward.
Without that step, people can sit in custody for months or longer, even if they pose no danger and have strong claims to stay. According to the filing, the only option left is to file individual habeas petitions in federal court — which delays release and crowds court dockets. The ACLU says this is no substitute for a prompt bond review by an immigration judge.
Three central claims
The lawsuit alleges three core problems:
- Misclassification as “mandatory detention”: ICE and some immigration judges allegedly treat many people as subject to mandatory detention even when the law does not require it. That label bars access to bond hearings.
- Due process violations: Cutting off access to a neutral judge prevents case-by-case weighing of flight risk and public safety, violating the basic right to fair treatment.
- Real-world harms: The policy causes long-term incarceration, family separation, and, in some cases, people effectively “disappearing” from legal processes because they cannot meaningfully fight their cases while detained.
Who filed the lawsuit and what they seek
The ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project filed the suit with ACLU affiliates in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine, along with the law firms Araujo & Fisher and Foley Hoag, plus the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinic.
The plaintiffs ask the court to:
– Stop ICE and immigration courts from using misclassification to deny bond review.
– Require clear rules to ensure fair hearings and guard against indefinite detention.
Nationwide pattern and implications
The filing points to a broader pattern. Since late 2022, the ACLU says a practice first flagged in Washington state has spread across the country, with the Department of Homeland Security and some immigration judges applying it nationwide.
This expansion, the group argues, undercuts principles of fairness and creates uneven treatment for people held in different facilities or regions for the same type of arrest.
Bond hearings are often the first moment a person can make their case for release and gather evidence from outside detention. Loss of access to that step shifts power to the jailer and away from the judge.
In plain terms, people may remain locked up because of a label that, according to the ACLU, does not fit the facts or the law. That dynamic, the filing says, conflicts with the Constitution and past court rulings.
Potential effects on detainees, courts, and communities
If the court grants relief, thousands of detained immigrants could regain access to bond hearings. That would allow immigration judges to weigh key factors such as:
- Community ties
- Criminal history
- Likelihood of appearing for court
For families, a granted bond can mean a parent returning home while the case continues. For employers, it can mean a worker returning to a job while awaiting final decisions. For local courts, a clear rule could reduce the flood of individual habeas filings and return bond questions to the proper forum.
If the ACLU loses, the current pattern could harden. People picked up solely for entering the country could face months in detention without a chance to ask an immigration judge for release. Lawyers would continue filing case-by-case habeas petitions, and a patchwork of outcomes would likely grow.
VisaVerge.com reports that in similar detention fights, courts have often pushed agencies to set guardrails when people’s liberty is at stake — especially when the law allows a judge to weigh release conditions.
Related concerns about detention expansion
The ACLU frames this lawsuit as part of a larger push for transparency and limits on detention growth. The group says ICE seeks to expand detention capacity in places like Colorado and Wyoming while due process problems remain unresolved.
Advocates warn that expanding beds without updated rules and oversight risks:
– More wrongful detention
– More blocked bond hearings
They want federal courts to press for fixes before the system grows larger.
Human impacts described in the filing
While the lawsuit focuses on legal process, the filing emphasizes the human consequences of long detention:
- Lost jobs
- Disrupted schooling for children
- Interrupted medical care
- Difficulty finding legal counsel, gathering records, or contacting witnesses
- Delays of weeks to obtain simple documents (e.g., landlord or school letters)
When someone finally wins release, they often have to restart their case, now behind on evidence and deadlines. The ACLU says routine access to bond hearings can help prevent these cascading hardships.
Government position and legal background
The government has not yet filed its response in court. Typically, ICE and the Department of Homeland Security defend detention authority by citing public safety and flight risk. They note that Congress limited bond in certain categories, such as serious criminal convictions.
The ACLU does not dispute those statutory limits. Instead, it contends ICE and some judges have stretched “mandatory detention” labels to cover people who do not fall into those categories — including those arrested only for entry.
For official background on bond rules in immigration court, see the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review overview:
This resource explains the basics and helps people understand what information may matter if hearings are restored.
Key questions to watch as the case proceeds
- Will the court issue an early order restoring access to bond hearings while the case is pending?
- How will ICE and immigration judges adjust classification practices if the court rejects the current approach?
- Could a ruling shape detention policies nationwide, affecting facilities across the United States?
The outcome will ripple across detention centers, law firms, and families. Community groups are preparing to help detainees gather documents, contact sponsors, and get legal help if bond hearings resume. Public defenders and clinics in New England say they are ready to file motions as soon as rules change. Employers that rely on detained workers may also step in to confirm jobs and housing — factors often key to a release decision.
Final framing
At its core, the case tests a simple idea: when the law allows a person to ask for release, they should get a fair chance to do so. The ACLU says that promise has been sidelined by misclassification and blanket denials. The government is expected to argue detention decisions reflect legal limits and safety concerns. The court will decide where the line lies — and whether due process requires that bond hearings remain open to those arrested only for entering the country.
Frequently Asked Questions
This Article in a Nutshell
On September 22, 2025, the ACLU filed a class-action lawsuit alleging ICE and some immigration judges misclassify detainees as subject to mandatory detention to block access to bond hearings. The complaint, backed by ACLU affiliates, private law firms, and the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinic, says the practice expanded nationwide since late 2022 after a Washington court flagged it as likely illegal. The suit claims this misclassification denies detainees a neutral judge review, forces months-long detention, and burdens federal courts with habeas petitions. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief to stop the practice and require clear rules to restore bond reviews. A favorable ruling could reopen bond access for thousands, reduce habeas filings, and mitigate family, employment, and health harms; a loss could entrench prolonged detention for people arrested only for entry. The government has yet to respond, and courts will weigh statutory limits, public-safety arguments, and constitutional due-process protections.
