Nevada Judge Blocks ICE from Detaining All Deportation Cases, Limits Arrests

(NEVADA) — U.S. District Judge Richard Boulware II blocked a Department of Homeland Security policy on March 31, 2026, that required ICE to detain nearly all people facing deportation in Nevada, delivering the first successful class-action challenge in the state to the agency’s no-bail approach.

The ruling in Jacobo-Ramirez v. Noem (Case No. 2:25-cv-02136) stops DHS from enforcing a summer 2025 policy that treated almost every person in deportation proceedings as subject to mandatory detention. Boulware ruled that the practice violated federal law and the Fourth Amendment and caused “irreparable harm.”

His order restores bond hearing rights for a defined group of non-citizens in Nevada: those who entered without inspection, are in removal proceedings, and do not have prior removal orders. For current and future detainees in that class, immigration judges can again decide whether release is appropriate.

DHS answered the ruling with a statement on April 3, 2026, defending its enforcement actions and signaling it believes higher courts will back the government. “Regarding decisions from federal courts about mandatory detention, judicial activists have been repeatedly overruled by the Supreme Court on these questions. ICE has the law and the facts on its side and ICE will continue to adhere to all court decisions until they are ultimately struck down by the highest court in the land.”

The agency also said the no-bail policy had been affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals and tied the measure to “unvetted migration” and the “abuse of loopholes” during the previous administration. DHS officials pointed to the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision in Perdomo v. Noem in Sept. 2025 as support for broad federal power to conduct immigration operations and detain non-citizens.

Boulware’s order cuts against that enforcement drive in one state at a time when the administration has expanded arrests. Nevada now stands apart from other jurisdictions where similar detention policies survived court review.

In a similar California case, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the administration. Similar mandatory detention policies have also been upheld in the 5th and 8th Circuits, making the Nevada ruling a rare court victory for immigrants challenging the administration’s mass deportation push.

At the center of the case was a legal classification with large consequences. The summer 2025 policy required Immigration and Customs Enforcement to detain almost every individual in deportation proceedings and labeled immigrants arrested in the interior of the United States as “applicants for admission.”

That label has traditionally applied to people caught at the border. Under the Nevada policy, applying it to interior arrests sharply limited access to bond hearings and left detainees with far less chance to seek release while their cases moved forward.

Boulware said the policy broke with decades of practice in which immigration judges assessed whether someone posed a flight risk or a danger to the public before denying bond. His ruling rejected the idea that the government could erase that process for nearly everyone swept into removal proceedings in Nevada.

The decision carries immediate consequences inside detention facilities. Hundreds of people now in custody may regain access to bond hearings, and thousands of future detainees in Nevada may also benefit from the ruling.

Legal experts estimate that upwards of 60 people per week in Nevada may now seek release on bond. That estimate points to how wide the ruling could reach in a state that has seen a sharp increase in immigration arrests.

The court set near-term deadlines to put the ruling into effect. By April 7, 2026, the government must post bilingual notices in common areas of all Nevada immigration detention facilities explaining the decision.

By April 14, 2026, detention facilities must provide official forms for habeas petitions so detainees can challenge their imprisonment in court. Those forms create another route for people held under the no-bail policy to contest continued custody.

For families, the ruling may matter as much as the legal doctrine. Athar Haseebullah, Executive Director of the ACLU of Nevada, said, “The decision is enormously consequential. people will have the opportunity to be back with their families” while awaiting their court dates.

That focus on family separation formed part of the case’s practical impact. ACLU Nevada, identified as the lead petitioner, has argued that restoring access to bond hearings can return decision-making to immigration judges instead of keeping detention automatic.

Nevada’s detention system also sits in a wider regional context. The state is home to some of the most over-capacity detention centers in the United States, a backdrop that helped frame the fight over whether nearly everyone in deportation proceedings should remain locked up.

Boulware’s order does not apply to every non-citizen in the state. It covers people in Nevada who entered without inspection, are already in removal proceedings, and lack prior removal orders, leaving the court’s class definition central to who may seek relief.

Within that class, however, the ruling reaches both those already detained and those who may be arrested later. That makes the order more than a one-time release decision for named plaintiffs; it reopens bond hearing rights for a broader group moving through Nevada’s immigration courts and detention facilities.

The case name, Jacobo-Ramirez v. Noem, now marks what advocates describe as a legal barrier to the administration’s effort to make detention the default outcome. In practical terms, it means a Nevada judge has barred ICE from using a policy that presumed detention first and individual review later, if at all.

DHS has made clear it does not agree. The agency’s statement cast federal court resistance to mandatory detention as temporary and argued that Supreme Court precedent will ultimately support its position.

That argument turns partly on Perdomo v. Noem, which DHS cited as proof of broad detention authority. Yet Boulware’s order shows that even with the administration prevailing elsewhere, district court judges can still limit how those powers operate when they find a policy conflicts with federal law and constitutional protections.

The Nevada decision also creates what advocates see as a firewall inside the 9th Circuit. Although the appeals court recently sided with the administration in the California case, Boulware’s ruling blocks the policy in Nevada unless a higher court steps in.

For detainees, the shift is immediate and concrete. A person once classified by ICE as an “applicant for admission” after an interior arrest may now ask for the hearing that the summer 2025 policy had largely foreclosed.

For immigration judges, it restores a familiar role. They can again weigh flight risk and danger to the public instead of operating under a blanket detention rule for nearly everyone in the covered class.

For the administration, the case presents another courtroom test of its enforcement agenda. The second Trump administration’s mandatory detention campaign has aimed to keep more people in custody during deportation proceedings, and Nevada now stands as one place where that strategy has been stopped.

The ruling’s effect will unfold on a tight schedule. Notices had to go up by April 7, 2026, and habeas forms must follow by April 14, 2026, turning the court’s legal findings into visible changes inside detention centers over two weeks.

People seeking more information can find ACLU of Nevada press materials at ACLU of Nevada, broader policy statements at the DHS Newsroom, and the court record under Case No. 2:25-cv-02136 in the U.S. District Court, District of Nevada.

For now, the ruling leaves Nevada as an exception in a national legal fight over how far ICE can go in making detention automatic during deportation cases. “The decision is enormously consequential. people will have the opportunity to be back with their families,” Haseebullah said.