The ruling comes after the ACLU of Maine filed a habeas petition on behalf of a man held without bond. The organization has now filed a related class action.
A federal judge has ruled in favor of a man unlawfully detained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in Maine. The court has blocked the federal government from transferring him out of the state and concluded that he is likely to prevail on his claims that his due process rights were violated when he was arrested and detained without a bond hearing. The ACLU of Maine filed a habeas petition on behalf of the man on Thursday, September 19. Following this preliminary victory, the ACLU of Maine and other advocates have filed a class action lawsuit seeking relief for people in similar situations.
“We look forward to vindicating the due process rights of our client unlawfully detained in Maine, as well as the rights of people in similar situations with our class action lawsuit,” said Max Brooks, an immigration attorney with the ACLU of Maine. “Indefinitely detaining people and separating them from their families, communities, and jobs is not only cruel – it’s against the law. Millions of people who have been waiting for their day in court are now at risk of being jailed indefinitely over civil violations.”
Initial Habeas Case and Victory: Petitioner v. Stamper, et. al.:
The initial case, Petitioner v. Stamper et. al., was filed by the ACLU of Maine in the United States District Court for the District of Maine on behalf of a man who was unlawfully detained by CBP. After local police arrested the man near Waterville and transferred him into CBP custody, he was transported over 200 miles and detained in Fort Fairfield. He was held incommunicado for nine days, with no ability to contact family or legal counsel. As the petition alleges, CBP violated his due process rights by denying him the opportunity for a bond hearing, as required under federal law.
On September 19, the federal court for the District of Maine ruled that the ACLU of Maine's client is likely to prevail on his claims that the government violated his due process rights by re-arresting him and holding him without an opportunity for release on bond. The judge granted the ACLU of Maine’s request for emergency relief, blocking the federal government from transferring the man to a far-flung detention facility away from his legal counsel and community.
Class Action on Bond Hearings, Orellana v. Moriz, et. al.:
On Monday, September 22, the ACLU of Maine and other advocates filed a class action lawsuit to challenge the widespread denial of bond hearings to people detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). As the complaint demonstrates, this denial is a violation of statutory and constitutional rights, upending decades of settled law and established practice in immigration proceedings.
The case was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts by the ACLU, ACLU of Massachusetts, ACLU of Maine, ACLU of New Hampshire, law firm Araujo and Fisher, law firm Foley Hoag, and the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinic.
Denying Bond Hearings Violates Due Process, Federal Law:
Similar to Petitioner v. Stamper et. al., the class action complaint alleges that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) recently and abruptly began to misclassify people arrested by ICE inside the United States, allowing them to deny people’s statutory right to a bond hearing.
Federal law contains three statutes that clearly outline when people may be entitled to a bond hearing:
- 8 U.S.C. § 1225: A statute that applies to people stopped at the border or ports of entry. They may be held without bond hearings.
- 8 U.S.C. § 1226: A statute that applies to people arrested inside the U.S. while their immigration cases proceed. These individuals are entitled to bond hearings before an immigration judge, unless they are deemed a threat to public safety or a flight risk.
- 8 U.S.C. § 1231: A statute that applies after someone has a final order of removal, allowing detention during the 90-day “removal period” and, in limited circumstances, beyond.
Since Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act in 1996, immigrants arrested within the United States have been covered by § 1226, which grants the right to a bond hearing unless subject to certain criminal and national security considerations.
However, in late 2022, the Immigration Court in Tacoma, Washington, began misclassifying § 1226 detainees arrested inside the United States as mandatory detainees under § 1225, solely because they initially entered the country without permission. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington ruled that this practice was likely illegal in April 2025 and ordered a bond hearing for a wrongfully detained litigant.
Despite 30 years of precedent, DHS adopted the Tacoma Immigration Court’s unlawful practice nationwide and began to ask immigration judges to deny bond hearings in July 2025. On September 5, 2025, the Board of Immigration Appeals issued a precedential decision in Matter of Yajure Hurtado, which systemically misclassifies immigrants as if they are § 1225 border detainees, stripping them of their right to bond hearings.
“This statute has never been applied to people arrested in the interior of the United States and placed in removal proceedings, and this practice blatantly goes against its plain language,” said Brooks. “However, CBP and ICE have begun indefinitely jailing people who are undergoing civil immigration proceedings that can take months or years. This is a clear violation of the due process rights of immigrants as outlined by federal law. Several other federal courts have found this new policy violates federal law, including district courts in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and New York, and we look forward to protecting these rights here in Maine.”
