Nevada Judge Rules Against No-Bail Detention for Immigrant Detainees

Federal judge finds DHS policy violates the law, orders notices posted in detention centers

Apr. 3, 2026 at 11:18pm

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A photorealistic painting of a single-story, nondescript government building with barred windows, set against a backdrop of warm, angled sunlight and deep shadows, conveying a sense of isolation and melancholy.The court ruling provides a reprieve for hundreds of immigrants detained without bond hearings under a disputed DHS policy.Las Vegas Today

A Nevada federal judge ruled that a Department of Homeland Security policy requiring mandatory detention of immigrants in deportation proceedings, even if they would otherwise be eligible for bail, violates the law. The American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada filed a class-action lawsuit challenging the policy, which the judge agreed raised Fourth Amendment concerns.

Why it matters

The ruling is a victory for immigrants' rights advocates who argued the Trump-era policy was part of a broader 'mass deportation agenda.' It will impact hundreds of current and future detainees in Nevada who meet certain criteria and were denied bond hearings under the disputed policy.

The details

The judge ordered the government to post bilingual notices about the ruling in Nevada immigration detention centers by April 14, and to provide class members a copy of the notice and a template habeas petition in a language they understand. Federal officials had defended the no-bail policy, saying it was affirmed by an administrative immigration court and that 'judicial activists' have been repeatedly overruled by the Supreme Court on such issues.

  • The class-action lawsuit was filed in late October 2025.
  • The judge issued his ruling on Monday, April 3, 2026.

The players

Judge Richard Boulware II

A Nevada federal judge who ruled that the DHS policy violates the law.

ACLU of Nevada

The American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, which filed the class-action lawsuit challenging the DHS policy.

Sadmira Ramic

Senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Nevada, who spoke about the ruling.

Victor Kalid Jacobo-Ramirez

One of the detainees arrested in Las Vegas last year who was a plaintiff in the lawsuit.

Edgar Michel Guevara-Alcantar

Another detainee arrested in Las Vegas who was a plaintiff in the lawsuit, and a recipient of a U visa for victims of crime.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“The decision is a major win for immigrants' rights advocates and those impacted by the Trump Administration's mass deportation agenda, including potentially thousands of future immigration detainees the ACLU of Nevada says would have likely found themselves denied bond hearings absent this litigation.”

— ACLU of Nevada

“For nearly a year, DHS has wreaked havoc on communities in Nevada by detaining anyone who entered the United States without inspection, even after hundreds of judges across the country, including here in Nevada, found their policies unlawful.”

— Sadmira Ramic, ACLU of Nevada senior staff attorney

“Regarding decisions from federal courts about mandatory detention, judicial activists have been repeatedly overruled by the Supreme Court on these questions. (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) 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.”

— DHS spokesperson

What’s next

The government has a Tuesday deadline to post bilingual notices about the ruling in Nevada immigration detention centers, and by April 14 must provide class members a copy of the notice and a template habeas petition in a language they understand.

The takeaway

This ruling is a significant victory for immigrants' rights advocates in Nevada, who argued the Trump-era DHS policy was part of a broader crackdown on undocumented immigrants. The judge's decision will provide relief to hundreds of current and future detainees who were denied bond hearings under the disputed policy, raising questions about the legality of similar hardline immigration enforcement measures.