A U.S. appeals court on March 31 halted a federal judge’s nationwide rulings that blocked the Trump administration from holding people without bond in its efforts to deport illegal immigrants, limiting the lower court order to only part of California.

In the order, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said, “The government has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on its position that the district court exceeded its jurisdiction in certifying a nationwide class.” Late last year, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California certified a class-action lawsuit against the government in favor of non-U.S. citizens who are facing mandatory detention without bond.

The appeals court said the district court’s ruling declaring the detention policy unlawful would remain in effect only in the Central District of California, where ​the judge is based. The Central District includes much of Southern California, including Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties, among others.

U.S. District Judge Sunshine Sykes certified a nationwide class-action in the case, and in December, declared as illegal the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy of detaining people arrested on immigration-related matters without giving them a chance to seek release on bond. She went ⁠further in February by vacating a Board of Immigration Appeals decision that endorsed the administration’s position.

The appeals court said the government had “also shown a likelihood of success on its position that the district court lacked jurisdiction to vacate” the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision, as the administration had already lodged an appeal of her December ruling, which stripped her of the ability to expand it.

In her December order, Sykes wrote that she believed that the Trump administration was seeking to continue to defy the law by refusing bond hearings after a previous ruling that she issued against the government.

“Respondents have far crossed the boundaries of constitutional conduct,” Sykes wrote, referring to the government as “Respondents.” “Somehow, even after the judicial declaration of law that the DHS was misguided in its act of legal interpretation that nullified portions of a congressionally enacted statute, Respondents still insist they can continue their campaign of illegal action.”

Earlier this year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit backed the Trump administration and ruled against lower court rulings that had granted habeas petitions to two Mexican nationals. They were deemed to be “applicants for admission” under federal law, which means that they are subject to mandatory detention without bond.

Lawsuits were filed against DHS and Customs and Border Protection after their 2025 adoption of the policy that classified illegal immigrants as “applicants for admission.”

The March 31 appeals court ruling came just a day after arguments were heard in the case. The court had previously issued a temporary, administrative pause of Sykes’s December order while it considered how to move forward.

During the March 30 court hearing, Matt Adams, a lawyer for the noncitizens in the class-action lawsuit at the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, said that the administration failed to adhere to a prior ruling from Sykes.

“The defendants essentially argue that they can insulate their own executive agency policies by issuing it through a board decision,” Adams said, referring to the Board of Immigration Appeals’ endorsement of the administration’s position.

The Epoch Times contacted the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project for comment on April 1.

Reuters contributed to this report.