The most current and relevant litigation update for immigration practitioners regarding the district court ruling on bond eligibility for EWI (entered without inspection) class action, Maldonado Bautista v. DHS and related developments as of late December 2025:
1. Final Judgment Issued Restoring Bond Eligibility Nationwide
On December 18–22, 2025, Judge Sunshine S. Sykes issued a final judgment in Maldonado Bautista v. DHS that:
Certifies a nationwide class of noncitizens who entered without inspection (EWI), were not apprehended at a port of entry, and are not subject to other mandatory detention statutes (e.g., INA § 236(c), § 1225(b)(1), § 1231).
Concludes that the Trump-era DHS/DOJ policy categorically denying bond eligibility to these EWI individuals is unlawful because it misclassifies them as subject to mandatory detention under INA § 1225(b)(2)(A) instead of discretionary detention under INA § 236(a).
Vacates the DHS “interim guidance” policy that eliminated bond hearings for this population.
Affirms that class members are entitled to custody redetermination (bond) hearings before immigration judges — restoring access to individualized bond determinations nationwide.
The court explained that this final judgment was necessary because the government directed immigration judges to ignore earlier summary judgment and declaratory orders, leading to continued denial of bond hearings on the ground.
This final judgment clarifies the government’s obligations and supersedes prior confusion about the effect of summary judgment and class certification on individual immigration court practice. (American Civil Liberties Union)
Key Litigator Takeaways:
The order is national in scope and binds DHS/DOJ in implementing bond hearings for the certified class.
The judgment explicitly vacated the DHS policy memorandum used to justify categorical no-bond treatment for EWI detainees.
Practitioners should cite this final judgment in motions for bond hearings before immigration judges and in habeas petitions where necessary. (American Civil Liberties Union)
Several federal district courts nationwide have issued similar rulings consistent with the reasoning in Maldonado Bautista:
A New England district court held that denial of bond hearings to class members in New England under the same DHS policy is unlawful, restoring bond hearing rights for that class as well. (ACLU of Massachusetts)
Multiple other district courts have rejected the government’s mandatory-detention interpretations for EWI or similarly situated detainees, finding detention under INA § 236(a) and ordering bond hearings. (Catholic Legal Immigration Network)
These decisions reinforce the broader judicial consensus that DHS’s policy is inconsistent with statutory and due process requirements.