Investigative lead
Documents obtained by this newsroom show U.S. District Judge Sunshine Sykes on Feb. 18, 2026 vacated a Board of Immigration Appeals precedent that had been used to justify broad mandatory detention of people caught in interior immigration operations. That BIA rule had allowed DHS to treat many long-term residents as “applicants for admission” — a label that, under the agency’s reading, permitted withholding individualized bond hearings. Judge Sykes’s order undoes that legal foundation in the district and orders immediate remedial steps, setting up fresh litigation over how DHS will enforce detention policy going forward.
The core evidence
Court filings and internal records reviewed by reporters show Sykes concluded the BIA precedent was legally unsound. The written opinion anchors its reasoning in statutory text, binding circuit precedent and administrative records. Exhibits include intake forms, detention logs, deposition testimony and affidavits from legal-service providers and medical staff documenting repeated delays in advisals and access to counsel. Taken together, these materials persuaded the judge that the contested classification of some interior arrestees as “applicants for admission” produced outcomes at odds with the statute’s remedial purpose — and with basic due-process protections.
What the court ordered
The Feb. 18 order does more than vacate a precedent. It requires DHS to notify detained noncitizens that they may be entitled to a bond hearing and to provide telephone access to counsel within one hour of detention. The opinion cites patterns of delayed advisals and restricted communications and frames those procedural failures as the practical harms that the remedies are meant to address. Court and advocacy filings show lawyers and advocates already moving to implement the order in detention facilities.
How the case reached this point
The litigation traces back to a string of challenges to DHS enforcement practices. Plaintiffs argued that reclassifying long-term residents as “applicants for admission” denied them routine bond hearings and other safeguards. Judge Sykes issued prior rulings in November and December finding the practice unlawful; when Chief Immigration Judge Teresa Riley advised immigration judges to keep following the BIA rule despite Sykes’s opinions, Sykes responded by vacating the precedent outright on Feb. 18. That vacatur strips the BIA decision of its controlling weight — at least within the district — and requires tribunals and agencies that relied on that rule to reassess past and pending detention decisions.
The factual reconstruction
The court reconstructed intake and custody timelines by aligning intake procedures, detention-center transfer records and phone logs. The judge found systemic delays most often occurred during transfers between facilities and routine administrative processing, producing repeated failures to promptly advise detainees of rights or to connect them with counsel. Those documented patterns, the opinion says, crystalized into concrete harms: missed opportunities for bond hearings and lengthier detention without individualized review.
Key players
– U.S. District Judge Sunshine Sykes: author of the vacatur and the earlier district rulings. – Board of Immigration Appeals: the administrative body whose precedent was vacated. – Department of Homeland Security and its enforcement components: implementers of the reclassification and the subject of the court’s remedial directives. – Chief Immigration Judge Teresa Riley: issued guidance telling immigration judges to continue applying the BIA rule, a directive Sykes found inconsistent with her earlier orders. – Private and public defenders, advocacy groups and immigration clinics: the plaintiffs and counsel pressing challenges and coordinating relief. – Appellate courts, courts across multiple circuits, and potentially the U.S. Supreme court: the next stages where this dispute will likely be resolved.
Immediate implications
The vacatur restores — at least in the district and for similarly situated detainees — the possibility of bond hearings that had been denied under the BIA rule. Immigration judges and DHS officers will need to revisit detention decisions that relied on the now-vacated precedent. Operationally, the order creates administrative work: facilities must issue notices, ensure prompt counsel access by phone, and retrain staff on intake scripts and protocols. Litigation and administrative wrangling will follow as parties argue over who qualifies for relief and how broadly the decision applies.
The broader legal landscape and circuit split
This dispute is unfolding against a backdrop of divergent rulings in federal courts. A conservative Fifth Circuit panel recently upheld the administration’s reinterpretation, creating a direct conflict with courts that have followed Sykes. That split has produced a patchwork of outcomes: detainees in some districts are getting bond hearings; others remain subject to the more restrictive Fifth Circuit framework. The discord is already shaping habeas strategy, producing venue contests and surges in filings.
A surge of habeas petitions
Court tallies and filings reviewed by reporters show more than 20,000 habeas petitions have been filed since the administration adopted an aggressive interior-enforcement posture. Many of those petitions were driven by immigration courts declining bond hearings; detainees and their counsel have sought relief in federal district courts, often aiming for venues where precedent favors release rather than transfer into the Fifth Circuit. The filings cluster in districts seen as favorable to petitioners and include affidavits documenting family separation, lost income and disruption to medical care — factual records district judges have cited when finding procedural harm.
Remedies and enforcement problems documented
The evidentiary record relied on by the court included administrative records, facility intake forms and phone logs that showed elapsed time between custody and counsel contact; it also included affidavits from service providers describing the real-world effects of delayed advisals. Those materials convinced the judge to attach specific remedies to the vacatur: mandatory notice of potential bond rights and rapid phone access to counsel. Advocates have already begun filing motions to enforce those requirements where compliance appears incomplete.
The core evidence
Court filings and internal records reviewed by reporters show Sykes concluded the BIA precedent was legally unsound. The written opinion anchors its reasoning in statutory text, binding circuit precedent and administrative records. Exhibits include intake forms, detention logs, deposition testimony and affidavits from legal-service providers and medical staff documenting repeated delays in advisals and access to counsel. Taken together, these materials persuaded the judge that the contested classification of some interior arrestees as “applicants for admission” produced outcomes at odds with the statute’s remedial purpose — and with basic due-process protections.0
The core evidence
Court filings and internal records reviewed by reporters show Sykes concluded the BIA precedent was legally unsound. The written opinion anchors its reasoning in statutory text, binding circuit precedent and administrative records. Exhibits include intake forms, detention logs, deposition testimony and affidavits from legal-service providers and medical staff documenting repeated delays in advisals and access to counsel. Taken together, these materials persuaded the judge that the contested classification of some interior arrestees as “applicants for admission” produced outcomes at odds with the statute’s remedial purpose — and with basic due-process protections.1