U.S. Pushes to Bar Bond Hearings for Undocumented Immigrants in Major Shift

15 July 2025

A US Department Of Homeland Security and US Customs and Border Protection sign is displayed at the US Customs and Border Protection Headquarters on May 18, 2025 in Washington, DC. Getty Images

In what amounts to one of the most significant reversals in U.S. immigration enforcement policy in decades, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has issued internal guidance aimed at eliminating bond hearings for undocumented immigrants. An internal memo from acting ICE Director Todd Lyons, dated July 8, instructs agents and prosecutors to interpret existing immigration statutes as mandating detention without the possibility of judicial review. The memo specifically redefines broader swaths of unauthorized immigrants including those with deep roots in the U.S. as ineligible for bond, dramatically altering the legal landscape surrounding deportation proceedings.

Federal immigration law has long stipulated mandatory detention for certain categories of undocumented immigrants, typically applied to recent border crossers. However, for decades, immigration judges often allowed bond hearings for individuals judged neither a flight risk nor a danger to the public. Lyons’ guidance, however, asserts that the law should now be interpreted more strictly, effectively precluding judicial discretion in most cases and rendering release decisions subject solely to ICE officials.

This change arrived following Congress’s recent approval of a $45 billion tax and spending package, which includes funding to nearly double ICE’s detention capacity from roughly 40,000 to 100,000 beds. As of late June, ICE held about 57,800 individuals in custody. This memo clearly anticipates and enables a significant swell in the detained population.

Legal scholars and civil rights advocates were quick to warn that this guidance marks a drastic departure from long-established policy. Tom Jawetz, formerly with the Department of Homeland Security, called it a “radical departure” that “could explode the detention population” Attorneys involved in early implementation efforts reportedly drawing on Washington state rulings have already filed lawsuits arguing that stripping bond eligibility from long-standing community members violates due process and may lead to indefinite detention.

The new policy also aligns with President Trump’s broader plan for mass deportations, an agenda he claims is in response to what he perceives as runaway illegal immigration during the prior administration. Congressional budget decisions have echoed this hardline stance, carving out funding specifically to expand detention capacity to accommodate the administration’s shift.

For immigrants living within the United States whether recent arrivals or long-term residents the memo ends access to a bond hearing and jeopardizes their ability to mount meaningful legal defenses. Prolonged detention often poses serious challenges, including lack of access to legal counsel, restrictions on family communication, and removal from supportive environments where witnesses and documentation are accessible.

Detention centers, particularly those located in remote or harsh environments, have seen scrutiny for overcrowding and unsanitary conditions. Health and civil rights groups argue that the expansion of detention without bond hearings escalates these concerns and risks deepening systemic injustices.

ICE and the Department of Homeland Security have not issued formal comments, and legal challenges are expected. Early court action may set the tone for how far the executive branch can interpret bond eligibility under statutory detention mandates.

This dramatic policy reversal redefines who can await deportation proceedings outside of detention, narrowing it sharply to those who have secured discretionary parole from ICE. It puts the executive branch at odds with immigration judges, legal advocates, and Constitutional safeguards. As lawsuits progress through the courts, this shift signals a turning point in American immigration enforcement, one with implications that will reverberate through courtrooms, communities, and policy debates for years to come.