On February 18, 2026, a federal judge in the Central District of California issued a sweeping order in Lazaro Maldonado Bautista et al. v. Ernesto Santacruz Jr et al., granting the plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the court’s prior judgment and vacating the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision Matter of Yajure Hurtado under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court also ordered classwide notice so potentially affected detainees understand they may be entitled to request release on bond or conditional parole, and to seek a bond hearing.
For people and families navigating immigration detention, this kind of order matters because it addresses a problem we see far too often: prolonged detention without a meaningful opportunity to seek release under the correct legal standard. When government agencies and immigration courts apply a detention rule that a federal court has found unlawful, the consequences can be immediate—missed work, family separation, and months of unnecessary confinement.
Who May Be Impacted by This Decision?
This order focuses on people the court refers to as Bond Eligible Class members—individuals in immigration detention who may be eligible to seek release on bond or conditional parole under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), and to request a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge.
In practical terms, the people most likely to be affected are those who are being held without a bond hearing because immigration courts were treating Matter of Yajure Hurtado as binding authority to deny jurisdiction or deny bond eligibility in certain admission-related detention scenarios—despite the federal court’s earlier rulings.
Why Bautista v. Santacruz Became a National Detention Flashpoint
The underlying litigation grew out of large-scale detention practices following a DHS policy shift. The court had already issued multiple orders culminating in a final judgment (December 18, 2025) declaring certain detention practices unlawful and vacating the DHS policy the government relied on.
But the case didn’t end there. The court found evidence of ongoing non-compliance—including continued reliance on Yajure Hurtado and a significant surge of habeas filings—prompting the plaintiffs to seek enforcement and additional relief.
Key Highlights of the February 18, 2026 Order
The court’s February 18, 2026 order did two major things that detainees and families should understand:
1) The court vacated Matter of Yajure Hurtado under the APA.
The court concluded that Yajure Hurtado was being used to perpetuate the same detention approach the court had already rejected, and that vacatur was necessary and proper to enforce the prior judgment.
2) The court ordered broad notice to potentially affected detainees.
The order requires the government to provide notice in multiple ways—online postings, facility postings, and direct service to people already detained and those newly arrested who may fall within the class.
Step-by-Step: What to Do If You Think You Might Be a Class Member
If you or a loved one is detained and has been denied a bond hearing (or told the court has “no jurisdiction” to hold one), these steps can help you take action quickly:
- Ask: “Am I eligible to request bond or conditional parole under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)?”
Certain detainees may be unlawfully detained and may be entitled to request release and/or a bond hearing.
- Request a bond hearing—clearly and on the record.
A bond hearing is not automatic in many cases. If your loved one is eligible, they (or counsel) should submit a clear request so there is a paper trail.
- Gather proof of community ties and stability.
Bond decisions are individualized. Strong submissions often include: family ties, stable address, work history, caregiving responsibilities, medical needs, and evidence countering any allegation of flight risk or danger. One must prove that they are neither a danger to the community or a flight risk.
- If the person is still being held without a hearing, consider habeas review.
Habeas litigation is often used when bond hearings are not provided. (This is general information—not legal advice for your specific case.)
Documentation and Preparation for a Strong Bond Request
Even when the law is on your side, the outcome can still turn on preparation. We recommend organizing a bond packet that includes:
- Identity documents and immigration paperwork (as available)
- Proof of residence and household support
- Letters from family, employers, faith/community leaders
- Evidence of rehabilitation or dismissal/absence of criminal history where relevant
- A proposed release plan (address, transportation, supervision, check-ins)
Small inconsistencies can create big delays. Names, A-numbers, addresses, and dates should match across documents wherever possible.
Understanding Notice Requirements and Why They Matter
One of the most practical parts of this order is the court’s insistence that notice must reach people where they actually are—detained, processing, and in immigration court.
The order directs notice to be posted on government websites (including the ICE detainee locator and EOIR case information site), physically posted at facilities such as Adelanto, and served directly to people who may be class members—including through forms used in the arrest and charging process.
It also requires that detainees be provided access to a phone to call an attorney shortly after receiving notice, and that Immigration Judges address notice at the first master calendar hearing.
Did you know?
The class notice indicates that people who may be class members can call class counsel at (415) 343-0770 with questions about potential membership and rights under the ruling.
Avoiding Common Pitfalls When Seeking a Bond Hearing
A few issues can derail an otherwise strong request:
- Waiting too long to request the hearing (or not requesting it clearly)
- Submitting incomplete evidence (missing address, unclear release plan)
- Relying on outdated legal assumptions without tying arguments to current controlling rulings
- Not documenting what happened (who denied bond, what was said, when)
If a detainee has been told “bond is not available,” it is especially important to preserve that denial in writing or in the record, because the remedy may depend on what basis was used to refuse a hearing.
The Future of Detention-and-Bond Litigation
This order is also a reminder of the separation-of-powers tension that can arise when agencies continue to apply interpretations courts have rejected. The approach here—vacatur of a precedential decision and mandatory notice—signals that federal courts may use broader tools when compliance problems persist.
For detained individuals, the takeaway is simple: changes in detention policy don’t always arrive cleanly or uniformly, and enforcement often happens case-by-case through hearings and, when necessary, federal court review.
Final Tips and Resources for Families Facing Detention
If your loved one is detained and you suspect they may be affected by this ruling:
- Act quickly: request a bond hearing and start building a bond packet
- Keep a written timeline: arrest date, facility, any bond denials, hearing dates
- Save every document provided (including I-862 / I-213 paperwork where available)
- If you see non-compliance—no hearing, indefinite delays—talk to qualified counsel about options
Comments are closed.