Tacoma bond case raises separation-of-powers in Trump era

(TACOMA, WASHINGTON, USA) A federal judge in Washington has ordered the Tacoma Immigration Court to resume bond hearings for certain detainees at the Northwest ICE Processing Center, rejecting a local policy that had effectively barred such hearings for nearly all migrants who entered the United States without inspection. The October ruling, which issued an injunction, says those individuals are not subject to mandatory detention and that denying them a chance for release violates the Immigration and Nationality Act. The decision highlights a growing separation-of-powers clash over who gets to decide when the government may detain people without a hearing: Congress through statute, courts through review, or the executive branch through policy and interpretation.

Background: Tacoma’s Outlier Practice

For years, Tacoma has been a national outlier. Starting around 2022, most immigration judges at the court refused to hold bond hearings for noncitizens who entered without inspection (commonly called EWI). Judges cited 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) as requiring detention for the duration of removal proceedings.

However, that section generally applies to recent arrivals at the border who are seeking admission, not to people arrested long after they settled in the interior. By contrast, most immigration courts nationwide rely on 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which allows release on bond while cases move forward.

Even U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) took a different view than Tacoma’s judges. ICE typically records these detentions under § 1226(a), not § 1225(b), and the agency has declined to defend Tacoma’s no-bond approach in agency proceedings. The result in Washington state has been stark: prolonged detention and a bond grant rate near 6% in FY 2025, the lowest reported in the country.

Court Rulings and the Policy Clash

The legal fight intensified in March 2025, when a class action, Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, challenged Tacoma’s policy as unlawful under the INA and the Constitution’s due process guarantees. Plaintiffs argued the court’s practice removed judicial checks by treating virtually all EWI cases as mandatory detention, even when Congress did not say so.

According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, the case quickly became a test of whether the executive branch can use interpretation and internal guidance to expand detention without bond, overriding both the statute and courts’ role.

In October 2025, a federal judge in Washington sided with the plaintiffs in part, ruling that some immigrants at the facility are not subject to mandatory detention and must receive bond hearings. Similar rulings in other states, including Michigan and Colorado, have pushed back on a July 2025 directive from the Trump administration that ordered ICE to detain all immigrants who entered without inspection for the full length of their cases, without the possibility of bond. Courts have found that directive unlawful, reaffirming that the executive cannot strip away due process rights or define mandatory detention more broadly than Congress intended.

At the heart of the dispute is a separation-of-powers principle: Congress writes the laws, courts interpret and enforce legal limits, and the executive carries them out. When the executive branch — including immigration judges who sit within the Department of Justice — reinterprets statutes to remove hearings and court oversight, federal judges have warned that the constitutional balance is at risk. The Washington injunction restores bond consideration for the affected group while the broader legal fight continues in multiple jurisdictions.

The injunction requires bond hearings for affected detainees at NWIPC while appeals and further litigation proceed.

Impact on Detainees and Immediate Effects

The practical effects are immediate for people held at the Northwest ICE Processing Center (NWIPC). As of late October 2025, detainees who entered without inspection and were treated as subject to mandatory detention in Tacoma are again eligible for bond hearings, pending further litigation or policy shifts.

For many detainees, this means a chance to present evidence of community ties, work history, family support, and other factors that can show they are neither a flight risk nor a danger. For families, it means children can see parents return home while cases proceed, rather than spending months or longer in detention.

Key details emerging from the case and recent rulings:
– Tacoma’s policy: Nearly all EWI detainees denied hearings, citing § 1225(b).
– National practice: Most courts use § 1226(a) and allow bond hearings.
– ICE records: Detentions commonly logged under § 1226(a).
– Bond grant rate: Roughly 6% at Tacoma in FY 2025 — far below other courts.
– Current status: An injunction requires bond hearings for affected detainees at NWIPC while appeals play out.

Stakes Beyond Washington

The stakes go beyond Washington state. If the executive branch could treat interior arrests of long-term residents exactly like recent border arrivals and deny bond across the board, it would sweep thousands into mandatory detention. Courts in several states have said that is not what Congress wrote. They have also signaled that due process requires a real chance to seek release, especially when immigration cases can take many months or more to resolve.

For lawyers and advocates, the ruling brings Tacoma closer to national norms, where judges weigh each case rather than apply a blanket rule. For local communities, that change reduces the strain of prolonged detention.

Still, the outcome is not final. Appeals could reshape which groups qualify for bond hearings and under what standard. The Ninth Circuit may be asked to decide how § 1225(b) and § 1226(a) apply to different arrest scenarios, and whether agency guidance can narrow hearing rights that courts view as protected by statute and due process.

Practical Guidance for Families and Detainees

Families deciding whether to pursue a bond request should gather documentation that supports release:

1. Proof of identity and residence
2. Evidence of long-term presence in the United States 🇺🇸
3. Letters from employers, school officials, or faith leaders
4. Documents showing medical needs or caregiving responsibilities
5. Records of past court appearances or compliance with supervision

While bond procedure is handled by the immigration court rather than ICE, detainees and relatives can find facility information and contact details for NWIPC on the ICE detention facility page for the Tacoma Northwest ICE Processing Center:
– https://www.ice.gov/detention-facility/tacoma-nw-ice-processing-center

That page also lists visiting rules and services, which can help families stay in touch during proceedings.

Broader Legal and Policy Implications

The Tacoma dispute underscores a deeper policy question that will likely return regardless of which administration is in power. President Trump’s July 2025 directive was one of several efforts to broaden detention. Courts have now limited those efforts, pointing back to statutory text and due process. Future administrations will face the same guardrails: Congress sets the scope of detention authority, and courts will police the line when agencies push past it.

For now, the lesson from Washington, Michigan, and Colorado is clear:
– The executive cannot erase bond hearings with a memo or internal practice when Congress provided a release framework through § 1226(a).
– Immigration judges, though part of the executive branch, remain subject to federal court review when their interpretation cuts off hearings that the law still allows.

The separation-of-powers fight is not abstract. It determines whether a longtime resident with U.S. citizen children waits for a hearing at home or behind bars, and whether the law in the books — not shifting directives — guides that decision.