US : In a number of instances involving Indian nationals, US federal courts in many states have decided against immigration officials, concluding that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) improperly held the individuals without providing them with due process safeguards or bail hearings as required by federal law.

In decisions rendered this month in California, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, judges rejected the government’s use of mandatory detention provisions for people who were already residents of the United States and either ordered the release of Indian citizens or instructed ICE to hold speedy bail hearings.

Vikas Kumar, an Indian citizen held in the Otay Mesa Detention Center in California, was ordered to be released immediately by the US District Court for the Southern District of California. The court determined that ICE had violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment by illegally revoking Kumar’s parole without providing any prior notice, justification, or hearing.

After officials determined that Kumar was neither a flight risk or a community hazard, he was granted conditional parole and allowed to enter the United States in March 2024. Later, he sought for asylum and received a Social Security number, a driver’s license, and work authorization.

While delivering meals for DoorDash in December 2025, he got detained once again. The court authorized his release under the previous parole terms after finding that the government had not shown any altered circumstances that warranted his imprisonment.

Varun Varun, an Indian national being held in the North Lake Processing Center in Michigan, was granted habeas relief by the US District Court for the Western District of Michigan. Despite the fact that he had been residing in the country prior to his arrest, the court determined that ICE had improperly detained him under a mandatory detention legislation that applies to incoming noncitizens.

Varun was first freed on his own recognizance after arriving in the US in April 2023. After residing in California and submitting an asylum application, he was arrested in December 2025 while operating a truck. The court determined that his continuing incarceration was a violation of due process and ordered ICE to either release him or give him a bail hearing within five business days.

Sumit Tulsibhai Patel, another Indian national held at the same institution, was also given similar relief by the same court in a different Michigan case. Before being detained again in 2025, Patel was freed on bail after entering the country in 2021. Citing constitutional concerns, the court determined that ICE had once again misapplied the obligatory detention regulations and ordered a bail hearing or release.

Amit Kanaut, an Indian national who was arrested by ICE at a regular check-in in December 2025, was ruled to be released by the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in Pennsylvania. Kanaut arrived in the US in 2022, followed ICE reporting guidelines, worked lawfully, and filed for asylum.

Given that Kanaut had been living in the country for over three years, the court rejected the government’s claim that he was subject to obligatory detention as a “applicant for admission.” The court ordered his immediate release, stating that holding him without a bail hearing “offends due process.”

In all of the instances, justices condemned a recent government policy that instructed ICE to classify a large number of illegal immigrants as being subject to mandatory detention, even if they were already residents of the nation. Judges have ruled over and again that these people are covered by a distinct part of immigration law that permits bail release.

The courts also emphasized the protected liberty interest of noncitizens who are freed after an initial custody decision. Judges ruled that parole or bond could not be withdrawn without prior notice, justification, and a hearing.

The opinions underscore that immigration enforcement must adhere to constitutional due process, including for Indian nationals seeking refuge in the United States, and they add to a growing corpus of cases against ICE detention methods.