Federal judge in Evansville orders ICE to grant man bond hearing

As a sign of just how far-reaching the legal fight over interior detention has become, also on Thursday the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in a similar bond-related case. The Eighth Circuit's largely Republican-appointed panel of judges appeared receptive to the Trump administration's argument that immigrants detained in the interior of the country could be denied bond hearings under the border-related statute, the Washington Examiner reported.

A day earlier, Judge Sunshine S. Sykes of the Federal District Court for the Central District of California issued a blistering 22-page ruling in yet another bond-related case in which she accused the Trump administration of perpetrating “terror against noncitizens,” “unlawful, wanton acts,” and “violence on its own citizens." Sykes' ruling ordered the government to implement aspects of a previous court order in a case seeking to allow a class-action suit against ICE on behalf of anyone detained without bond under the border-related provision.

After Sykes, a Biden appointee, handed down her ruling, a Homeland Security Department spokesman responded by criticizing “judicial activists" and stating that ICE "has the law and the facts on its side." The Department of Justice appears likely to appeal.

In his own nine-page ruling granting 31-year-old Meza Ruiz's petition for habeas corpus – a legal tool that allows a detained person to ask a court to determine whether their imprisonment is lawful – Brookman flatly rejected the administration's argument that the border-related policy applied to migrants in the interior.

More Immigration News: Hundreds of Evansville students lead anti-ICE walkouts across city

Meza Ruiz, a citizen of Mexico, entered the country without authorization around 2008, when he was a minor, and has lived in the United States for roughly 18 years, court records state. On Dec. 29, 2025, local authorities arrested him in Boone County, Indiana, for driving without a license. ICE officers then took him into custody on an administrative warrant and served him with a notice to appear for removal proceedings.

What happened next is at the center of the legal dispute in Meza Ruiz's case and many others. Rather than afford him a bond hearing that could result in his release from detention while the case proceeded, the government argued he was subject to mandatory detention under a statute that applies to "applicants for admission" and that carries no bond eligibility.

In January, an immigration judge in Chicago declined to grant Meza Ruiz a bond hearing on the grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction to do so. Meza Ruiz's attorneys filed a habeas corpus petition in federal court, arguing the government had cited the wrong statute — one applying to recent border arrivals rather than long-term residents in the country's interior. Brookman agreed.

A U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer participates in an enforcement operation in Dallas, Texas.
The key legal question comes down to whether a person who entered the country without authorization years ago and has lived in the United States is still "seeking admission," which would trigger mandatory detention provisions. The Trump administration says yes, as has the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Brookman, along with a growing number of federal judges in Indiana, says no.

"Considering § 1225 as a whole," Brookman wrote in his ruling, referring to the statute in question, "the most natural meaning is that it applies to 'arriving' noncitizens attempting to enter the United States rather than to undocumented aliens like Mr. Meza Ruiz who have lived in the interior of the United States for eighteen years."

That interpretation aligns with a November ruling from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Because Indiana falls within the Seventh Circuit, that ruling carries substantial weight in Brookman's court. It's also in line with previous Brookman's previous rulings.

But the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which governs Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, reached the opposite conclusion just two weeks ago. On Feb. 6, the court upheld the Trump administration's detention theory, finding that noncitizens like Meza Ruiz can be considered to be "seeking admission" even if they have resided in the country for years and are not actively attempting to enter.

The ruling gave the administration a significant legal victory, but only within the Fifth Circuit's jurisdiction, as the Department of Homeland Security under Trump carries out the president's long-promised mass deportation campaign.

Brookman called the Fifth Circuit's decision "neither binding nor persuasive," and noted that one of the court's judges dissented sharply, arguing that the government's reading creates an "inexplicable redundancy" within the statute and violates a "cardinal principle of statutory construction."

Brookman had other issues with the government's position. ICE arrested Meza Ruiz using an administrative warrant that explicitly authorized his detention under an immigration statute that would have allowed for a bond hearing, which is the very statute the government later argued did not apply.

"Given the government's treatment of Mr. Meza Ruiz," Brookman wrote, "it cannot plausibly now maintain that he is subject to § 1225(b)(2)(A) and therefore categorically ineligible for discretionary release."

A spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney's Office, which represented the government, did not immediately respond to a request for comment or questions about whether the Trump administration would appeal. Meza Ruiz's attorney did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The government must certify its compliance with Brookman's ruling – that Meza Ruiz either receive a bond hearing or be released – by noon Wednesday. If Meza Ruiz receives a bond hearing, an immigration judge will then determine whether he poses a flight risk or danger to the community in deciding whether to grant his release.

Jake Warrum, an Evansville-based attorney with years of experience practicing law in the Southern District but who had no involvement in Meza Ruiz's case, said that given the divide among appellate judges it will likely fall to the U.S. Supreme Court to decide the broader statutory issue.

"?We've got a split in the circuits," Warrum said. "It's gonna end up at the United States Supreme Court... the problem is, you have to have the right client to get it there."

With regard to the bond hearing dispute, a Homeland Security Department spokesman said this week that ICE would adhere "to all court decisions" — but only until the rulings get "shot down by the highest court in the land.”