Tacoma judge opens door for immigrants detained in US to be released on bond

Peter Talbot, The News Tribune (Tacoma, Wash.) on Oct 1, 2025

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

A U.S. District Court judge has ruled that the Tacoma Immigration Court’s practice of denying bond hearings to people who entered the United States without admission is unlawful.

The Tuesday ruling comes after attorneys representing a class of noncitizens detained at the Northwest ICE Processing Center in Tacoma filed a class-action lawsuit in March challenging what they called a draconian interpretation of federal law that had immigration judges refusing to consider releasing people on bond who had lived in the country for years.

Judge Tiffany Cartwright, whose chambers are in Tacoma, wrote in a 59-page ruling that in fiscal year 2023, Tacoma immigration judges granted bond in only 3% of cases where bond was requested, a rate that was the lowest among immigration courts in the nation.

Over the summer, Cartwright said the government adopted the Tacoma Immigration Court’s interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act as its new national policy, which she said meant that noncitizens who hadn’t been lawfully admitted — even those with strong ties to their communities and no criminal records — weren’t eligible for a bond hearing.

According to the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, which brought the lawsuit the Western Washington District Court, her decision restores the opportunity for class members who entered the country without admission to have a hearing where they can present evidence of their connections to the United States, evidence of a lack of criminal history and other factors that show they aren’t a flight risk or dangerous.

“We are thrilled that the Court’s order has restored the opportunity for bond hearings for our class members, many who have been living in this country for decades,” Matt Adams, an attorney for the NWIRP, said in a press release.

A press secretary for the Executive Office for Immigration Review was out of the office Wednesday due to the shutdown of the federal government. The EOIR is a defendant to the lawsuit and has jurisdiction over the Tacoma Immigration Court through the Department of Justice.

Attorneys with the NWIRP initially filed the lawsuit on behalf of Ramon Rodriguez Vazquez, a former resident of Grandview in Yakima County who had lived there since 2009. He had no criminal history and owned a home. On Feb. 5, according to a motion for a preliminary injunction, immigration authorities invaded his residence “virtually unannounced” and detained him.

Rodriguez was subsequently detained at the immigration detention facility in Tacoma, where Tacoma Immigration Court proceedings are conducted. He was denied a bond hearing March 12 by Tacoma Immigration Judge John Odell.

Since then, Rodriguez accepted voluntary departure in May to leave the country, according to the NWIRP, and he is no longer in custody.

Cartwright said his individual claims are thus moot. But earlier this year the court certified two groups in the class action. One is noncitizens seeking a declaration that the Tacoma immigration judge’s bond denial policy is unlawful. The second is seeking a declaration that prolonged detention without timely appellate adjudication of a judge’s bond ruling violates their due process rights.

According to Cartwright’s ruling, part of the government’s argument in favor of mandatory detention was that through federal law, Congress intended for noncitizens to be treated the same whether they are living in the United States or encountered at the border.

Cartwright disagreed. She said it was easy to conceive of reasons Congress would make a distinction, including that noncitizens who have been living in the United States for years are more likely to be working in critical industries or parenting citizen children.

“The mass detention of these individuals — without regard to flight risk or danger to the public — is far more disruptive to local American economies, families, and communities than the detention of noncitizens who have just crossed the border,” Cartwright wrote.

_____