U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has issued new guidance instructing agents to limit release options for undocumented immigrants. Under the policy, most individuals who entered the country without authorization will no longer be eligible for bond hearings before an immigration judge. The change is outlined in an internal memo signed by acting ICE Director Todd Lyons on July 8, which cites a 1996 immigration statute to justify the agency’s expanded use of detention.

The directive, obtained by The Washington Post, marks a shift in how the Trump administration interprets longstanding immigration law. Those affected will remain in custody unless the Department of Homeland Security grants a specific exception. Until now, many individuals in similar circumstances could request a bond while their immigration cases moved through the courts.

Although the memo describes the agency’s authority as broad, Lyons acknowledged that the new policy could face court challenges. He instructed ICE attorneys to continue preparing arguments in support of detention, including evidence related to public safety and flight risk. ICE is already holding more individuals than its current budget allows, but Homeland Security officials say recently approved funding will support the increased capacity.

The policy does not apply to individuals who entered legally and later overstayed a visa. Instead, it targets those who crossed the border without authorization, regardless of how long they have resided in the United States or whether they have family members who are U.S. citizens.

The directive follows the passage of a new spending measure that includes $45 billion for immigration detention, significantly expanding the agency’s infrastructure. It also builds on a May decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals, which found that certain undocumented individuals are not entitled to bond hearings under current law. That decision served as a foundation for the current enforcement posture.

Immigration attorneys and civil rights advocates have criticized the policy, warning that it raises serious constitutional questions. “ICE’s position here is laughable and is being rejected by immigration judges all over the U.S., and will soon be dismissed by actual federal court judges in habeas proceedings,” wrote Charles Kuck, an immigration attorney and professor at Emory University, in a post on X, formerly Twitter.

Proponents of the policy, including the Center for Immigration Studies, contend that detention is an effective way to ensure compliance with court proceedings and removal orders. Opponents argue it will lead to widespread incarceration, strain court resources, and hinder many families from seeking legal protection.

Legal challenges to the policy are expected in the coming weeks, as civil rights organizations prepare to challenge its constitutionality in federal court.