A federal judge agreed on Thursday that she would allow a class of approximately 500 people in Colorado’s immigration detention to challenge the government’s refusal to set their bond, which she already found to be a likely violation of the law.

At the same time, U.S. District Court Judge Regina M. Rodriguez said she was not prepared to overturn the underlying legal authority the government has relied upon to detain people who are entitled to release hearings. Instead, Rodriguez anticipated that the government would follow any order she made clarifying the rights of detainees.

“Under normal circumstances, we’re not questioning whether or not the court’s orders would be followed,” she said during a hearing. “The normal expectation of honored members of this bar is that those orders will be followed. And unless proven otherwise, I don’t have any reason to” assume noncompliance.

Michael Tan, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union who is litigating the challenge to the government’s detention practices, responded that he would be “relieved” if the government would commit to respecting detainees’ rights according to Rodriguez’s interpretation of the law.

“I have worked on these issues for some time. I have never seen conduct from the government like this,” Tan said.

The plaintiff in the case before Rodriguez is Nestor Esai Mendoza Gutierrez, a native of El Salvador with a 26-year residency in the Denver area. Represented by the ACLU and other law firms, Gutierrez argued he was allowed to be released from detention under a provision of law applying to noncitizens “arrested and detained pending a decision” on their immigration case. The government countered Gutierrez — and others like him across the board — was subject to mandatory detention under a different provision that applies to noncitizens “seeking admission” to the country.

POLITICO recently reported that judges have ruled more than 200 times that the government is unlawfully applying its detention authority. Multiple federal judges in Colorado have also ordered relief for those contesting their detentions in recent months. Rodriguez was one of them, ruling on Oct. 17 that government was likely wrong to detain Gutierrez without the chance for a release hearing. She ordered him to be let out of immigration custody.

At the time, Rodriguez, a Joe Biden appointee, had questions about whether she should grant the request to turn Gutierrez’s lawsuit into a class action to encompass the roughly 500 others detained at Aurora’s immigration facility under similar circumstances.

“The 500 individuals who are not receiving bond hearings are being treated as Mr. Gutierrez was,” Tan told Rodriguez.

In addition to asking Rodriguez to declare that the law requires the proposed class of detainees to receive hearings at which the government must prove they are dangerous or a flight risk, the plaintiff’s lawyers sought something else. They asked Rodriguez to set aside, in a process known as “vacatur,” the government’s policy and a Board of Immigration Appeals decision from September that greatly expanded mandatory detention.

The reason, elaborated Tan, is that a Seattle-area judge declared in September that the government was unlawfully detaining noncitizens there. However, the U.S. attorney called the decision an “an advisory opinion,” and The Seattle Times reported that immigration judges have continued to refuse bond.

“The reason we’re seeking vacatur is because we have serious concerns about noncompliance,” said Tan.

“Well, if they’re gonna ignore the declaratory judgment order, what makes us think they’re not simply gonna ignore the vacatur order, as well?” asked Rodriguez.

“Our hope and expectation would be that they wouldn’t,” said Tan.

Rodriguez asked the government directly whether it was contending it would not have to follow an order declaring what the rights of detainees are.

“Not at all,” responded Assistant U.S. Attorney Brad E. Leneis.

Rodriguez also attempted to understand, as a “practical” matter, the government’s opposition to converting the lawsuit into a class action.

What the plaintiff’s attorneys are “asking this court is, ‘Hey, you’ve already ruled, just like many, many other courts across this country, that the (government’s) interpretation here is just simply wrong. And that there are many people — and in this particular state, 500-some people — who are being detained without a bond hearing under this faulty interpretation’,” she said.

Rodriguez added that “we’re already quite overwhelmed with the number of cases that are being filed here, both in this arena and others,” so a class action would streamline everything.

Leneis largely focused on arguing why Rodriguez is not allowed to vacate the underlying legal authority, as the plaintiff’s lawyers requested. However, Rodriguez indicated she will not “at this time” let the class action proceed on the question of setting aside the government’s policies.

In doing so, she hinted that she expected the government to follow any declaration she makes about detainees’ right to bond.

“Should it become necessary, I have no doubt that the petitioners’ counsel will notify this court immediately,” she said, “and we’ll move expeditiously at that point to address those issues.”

Rodriguez ordered the parties to settle on a definition of the class within 24 hours. If they could not agree about which detainees in Colorado should be included in the lawsuit, Rodriguez said she would hold a virtual hearing on Friday afternoon to break the impasse.

The case is Mendoza Gutierrez v. Baltazar et al.