Immigrants are collectively bringing a lawsuit against the Trump administration due to a new policy that eliminates bond eligibility for those currently detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

On July 8, ICE introduced this policy through a directive instructing all agents to withhold bond for individuals who have entered the U.S. without undergoing “inspection,” as disclosed by The Washington Post. According to this directive, these immigrants are to remain in detention “throughout their removal proceedings,” unless they are granted parole, a much less common form of release.

The implementation of this policy is expected to lead to thousands of individuals being “confined indefinitely while their immigration cases are pending, potentially for months or even years,” as emphasized by organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which is leading the lawsuit along with the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, a nonprofit organization.

On Monday, in a 37-page complaint, the plaintiffs asked a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

The contested policy is derived from a specific section of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which mandates detention for certain immigrants “awaiting a proceeding.” Traditionally, this section has been applied exclusively to immigrants intercepted at the border.

Recently, the Trump administration has confirmed a significant deviation from previous practice. The document, authored by acting ICE Director Todd M. Lyons, indicates that the federal government has “reassessed its legal stance on detention and release authority,” concluding that such individuals “cannot be released from ICE custody.”

The upshot of the policy is that any detained immigrant facing deportation will be “subject to mandatory detention” under the relevant statute “without the opportunity for release on bond during the pendency of their lengthy removal proceedings,” according to the lawsuit.

“The Constitution guarantees all persons within the boundaries of the United States rights to equal due process under the law, full stop,” ACLU attorney and spokesperson Michael Tan said in a press release announcing the litigation. “The Trump Administration seeks to rewrite our Constitutional bedrock, denying millions of immigrants in cruel detention facilities the ability to seek bond. With one memo, ICE hopes to keep people away from their families for months – or even years – before their cases are even heard.”

The lawsuit likens the new anti-bond policy to a trial run of sorts performed by immigration judges in Tacoma, Washington. This trial run was eventually shut down by a federal judge.

From the filing, at length:

ICE and DOJ have adopted this new and unprecedented position on bond even though federal courts have rejected this exact conclusion. For example, in the Tacoma, Washington, immigration court, [immigration judges] previously stopped providing bond hearings for persons who entered the United States without inspection and who have since resided here, reasoning such people are subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A). There, in granting preliminary injunctive relief, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington found that such a reading of the INA is likely unlawful[.]

To hear immigrants’ advocates – and the aforementioned federal court in the Evergreen State – tell it, the Trump administration is choosing to apply the incorrect statute to immigrants who entered the country “without inspection and who have since resided here.”

The four plaintiffs in the case have, collectively, lived in the U.S. for nearly 50 years. The ACLU hopes the length of their time here will highlight the marked shift in policy. The plaintiffs are filing their lawsuit as a class action to represent “at least thousands of individuals detained each year at immigration detention centers across the country to whom the DHS’s no-bond policy applies” as well as “many future potential members, given the large numbers of persons residing in the United States who entered without inspection.”

“This detention policy blatantly violates the immigration laws that have been in effect for almost thirty years,” Northwest Immigrant Rights Project Legal Director Matt Adams said in a statement. “Our clients are standing up on behalf of themselves and thousands of others like them, who have lived in this country with their families for years, and are entitled to individual custody determinations.”

FILE – In this Aug. 28, 2019, photo, a guard stands in the intake area at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center in Adelanto, Calif. (AP Photo/Chris Carlson, File).

Each of the plaintiffs were recently detained during immigration raids in Los Angeles and are currently detained in the same ICE facility.

The plaintiffs insist the correct section of the INA to apply to long-term immigrant residents is § 1226(a), which allows for release on money bond or parole – with strict limits on work authorizations.

The lawsuit argues the new policy “defies the INA” as well as a recently passed law – the Laken Riley Act – which excludes “certain noncitizens who entered without inspection” from the INA’s “default bond provision.” The new law making mention of such a provision means the INA does, in fact, assume bond is the standard, according to the filing.

“When Congress creates ‘specific exceptions’ to a statute’s applicability, it ‘proves’ that absent those exceptions, the statute generally applies,” the lawsuit reads – citing the recent court decision. “Section 1226 therefore leaves no doubt that it applies to people who face charges of being inadmissible to the United States, including those who are present without admission or parole.”

The lawsuit alleges several counts including violations of the INA, regulations associated with the INA, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause.

The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Sunshine Suzanne Sykes, a Joe Biden appointee. Currently, the docket is being handled by a magistrate judge.