Indian nationals being held in immigration detention in the U.S. may be getting a reprieve soon. Federal courts across the United States this week have ordered bond hearings or immediate release for several Indian nationals held in immigration detention.
In multiple states, including California, Michigan, New York, and Oklahoma, judges found that prolonged detention without proper consideration of bond or individualized review violated constitutional due process protections.
In California, a federal judge in San Diego granted a habeas petition filed by Harbeet Singh, the court ordered an “individualized bond hearing” within seven days.
READ: Trump retaliates with 10% global tariffs on US Supreme Court’s ruling (
Many of the cases involved individuals detained under the Immigration and Nationality Act, with courts determining that certain statutory provisions were incorrectly applied, effectively denying detainees the opportunity to seek bond. Judges granted habeas petitions and, in some instances, ordered that detainees be released immediately or provided a bond hearing within a short timeframe.
In Michigan, a federal judge in the Western District conditionally granted relief to Sagar Ram, the court ordered a bond hearing under section 1226(a) within five business days or immediate release with the judge rejecting the government’s claim that mandatory detention applied.
These rulings show the need and importance of procedural fairness in immigration enforcement and illustrate the checks and balances that courts provide in reviewing executive branch detention decisions.
In another California case, a federal judge ordered the immediate release of Bhawandeep Singh Dhaliwal. The court said he “SHALL be released IMMEDIATELY from DHS custody,” with the judge also barring authorities from re-arresting him without constitutionally adequate process.
These rulings underscore that prolonged confinement without meaningful judicial review is increasingly being recognized as inconsistent with due process principles, reinforcing that the government’s authority to detain is not unlimited. These decisions reflect a judicial insistence that detention practices must balance the government’s enforcement objectives with the fundamental rights of individuals, ensuring that each case receives individualized consideration.