A federal judge told U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement on Thursday that it cannot impose additional restrictions or monitoring conditions beyond those ordered by an immigration judge when releasing a person on bond.

In November, U.S. District Court Judge Gordon P. Gallagher found that the government violated the rights of Khristyne Batz Barreno by keeping her in immigration detention in Aurora without a constitutionally adequate bond hearing. Days later, an immigration judge granted Barreno’s release while her immigration proceedings continued.

However, Barreno returned to Gallagher, alleging that, while the immigration judge had not imposed additional conditions on her, ICE required her to wear an ankle monitor and comply with reporting requirements. She asked Gallagher to order ICE to lift its restrictions on her.

Because of the federal rules surrounding immigration cases, the underlying filings in Barreno’s case are protected from public view. But in Gallagher’s latest order from Jan. 15, he indicated the government had argued it complied with his order to hold a bond hearing, and that was sufficient.

“Even if strictly true, this is of no moment. They do not raise any argument that continued custody of Petitioner could potentially be consistent with due process if they failed to meet their burden at the bond hearing,” wrote Gallagher, a Joe Biden appointee.

He added that courts have viewed GPS or ankle monitoring as “custody.” Imposing such restrictions was unlawful, Gallagher wrote, and following the immigration judge’s directive was not “at all convoluted or confusing.”

“The IJ did not impose a GPS condition and ICE cannot, by itself, add that unimposed condition,” he wrote. “Fundamental fairness and compliance with the rule of law mandate this result and comport with a general societal understanding of fairness and fairplay.”

The case is Barreno v. Baltasar et al.