Second Circuit Revives Fight for Fair Immigration Bond Hearings

Junior Onosamba-Ohindo was locked inside the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility while his immigration case moved forward. When he asked an immigration judge to release him, the judge set bond at $8,000.

Junior had no income or savings. He could not pay. On paper, Junior had been granted release. In reality, the $8,000 bond kept him jailed. The government did not have to prove that he was dangerous or likely to miss court. Junior bore the burden of proving that he deserved his freedom while trying to gather evidence and communicate with people outside from inside an immigration detention center.

Junior’s experience was not unusual. Under the procedures used in immigration bond hearings governed by federal law (codified as 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)), detained immigrants generally bear the burden of proving that they are not dangerous and do not pose a flight risk. Immigration judges are also not required to consider whether a person can afford the bond they set or whether less restrictive conditions, such as reporting requirements or community supervision, could address the government’s concerns. These rules start from the wrong place. The government is the party taking away someone’s liberty. It should have to explain why detention is necessary.

In March 2020, Equal Justice Under Law and the New York Civil Liberties Union filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of Junior and other people subjected to these procedures. We argued that due process requires the government to justify continued detention and requires immigration judges to consider whether a person can afford bond and whether nonfinancial conditions could allow the person to return safely to the community.

Later that year, the federal district court agreed that the challenge could proceed as a class action. The court certified a class of people detained under § 1226(a) at the Buffalo facility who had not yet received bond hearings before the Buffalo or Batavia Immigration Courts. It also issued a preliminary injunction requiring the government to prove by clear and convincing evidence that detention was necessary. Immigration judges had to consider alternatives to detention and, before setting a monetary bond, whether the person could afford it.

For nearly two years, the government followed those procedures. People facing immigration detention in Buffalo received hearings at which the government had to justify keeping them locked up.

Then the legal landscape changed. In 2022, the Supreme Court decided Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez. The Court interpreted a federal immigration statute to prevent lower courts from issuing certain classwide injunctions. Because of that ruling, the preliminary injunction in Junior’s case could no longer remain in place. But Aleman Gonzalez did not decide whether the government’s bond hearing procedures were constitutional. It addressed the power of lower courts to issue one particular kind of remedy.

After the injunction was vacated, Equal Justice Under Law and the NYCLU returned to the district court and asked for a declaratory judgment: a judicial ruling establishing that the existing bond procedures violate due process. The district court agreed that federal law still allowed classwide declaratory relief. It also repeated its earlier view that the government should bear the burden of justifying detention.

Even so, the court decertified the class and dismissed the case. It reasoned that a declaration would not force the government to change its practices and that class members might still need to bring individual habeas cases to obtain new hearings.

We appealed.

On July 29, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated that decision and sent the case back to the district court. The ruling restores our ability to pursue a classwide declaration concerning the constitutional protections required at immigration bond hearings.

All three judges agreed that the federal statute limiting classwide injunctions does not prohibit classwide declaratory judgments. Congress expressly restricted courts from issuing injunctions that interfere with the operation of certain immigration laws. It did not place the same restriction on declarations of legal rights. The statute’s title refers only to a limit on “injunctive relief,” and a neighboring provision shows that Congress knew how to restrict declaratory relief when it wanted to do so.

A majority of the panel also held that the district court had asked the wrong question when it decertified the class. At the class certification stage, the question is whether the government uses a common policy and whether one judicial ruling can determine the legality of that policy for everyone affected. Here, each class member faces the same basic hearing rules. Each person bears the burden of disproving danger and flight risk. Each person faces a system that does not require consideration of affordability or less restrictive conditions.

One declaration can decide whether those shared procedures comply with the Constitution. But the district court had instead focused on what might happen after a declaration was issued. Would the government voluntarily change its practices? Would some class members still need to go to court? Would individual habeas petitions be more effective?

The Second Circuit explained that those questions may matter later, when the district court decides whether to issue a declaration. They cannot be used to prevent people subjected to the same alleged constitutional violation from bringing their claims together in the first place. The court has not yet decided whether the government’s bond hearing procedures violate due process. That question now returns to the district court.

The stakes are not abstract. Immigration detention separates people from their families and communities. It can cost them their jobs, make it harder to obtain evidence, and interfere with their ability to prepare their immigration cases. When a person has been ordered released but remains jailed because they cannot afford bond, poverty becomes the reason for their continued incarceration. Our justice system should not presume that detention is justified and force people to prove otherwise from behind bars. Freedom should not depend on whether someone has thousands of dollars available at the moment the government decides to detain them.

Equal Justice Under Law was founded on the principle that a person’s wealth should never determine whether they lose their liberty. We are proud to continue this fight with Junior, the members of the class, and our partners at the New York Civil Liberties Union.