A federal appeals court on Thursday rejected an effort by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to detain migrants in the interior of the country without a bond hearing.

In a July 2025 memo, ICE issued interim guidance declaring that all unadmitted noncitizens are subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) and are no longer eligible for bond hearings.

There has been a split among the federal appeals courts over whether § 1225(b)(2)(A) applies strictly to noncitizens actively seeking legal admission at the border or if it also applies to noncitizens anywhere in the United States who have not been lawfully admitted.

Some federal appeals courts have rejected the Trump administration’s interpretation outlined in the ICE memo.

Meanwhile, the Fifth and Eighth Circuits have sided with the administration.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday rejected the administration’s policy, setting up a Supreme Court showdown.

POLITICO shared further:

It’s the ninth loss in a row for ICE at federal appeals courts, all of which have now ruled on the policy. The Supreme Court is all but certain to take up the issue in its next term.

Nine of the 11 appellate circuits to take up the matter have agreed that the Trump administration’s approach relies on a misreading of the 1996 immigration reform law that established current deportation and detention policies.

Every administration until this one — including Trump’s first — interpreted that law as requiring the detention of people who recently crossed the border. But in July 2025, ICE abruptly changed course and concluded that people residing in the interior of the country, even for decades, were subject to mandatory detention while their immigration proceedings played out for months or years.

The policy shift has led to a tsunami of emergency lawsuits filed by people detained by ICE under the new policy. And more than 460 federal judges rejected the new approach, while just over 50 sided with the Trump administration’s position. rejections have cut across ideologies, with a vast majority of judges appointed by all modern presidents — including Trump — turning down the administration’s position. That lopsided result has carried over to the appeals court level.

Nevertheless, the administration has persisted in applying its new approach, generating hundreds of new emergency lawsuits every day and legal battles that have roiled the courts, strained the relationship between ICE and Justice Department, upended tens of thousands of lives and drawn increasingly pointed rebukes from the judiciary.

Under ICE’s new view of the law, people who have lived inside the U.S. for years could still be treated as “seeking admission” to the country and therefore subject to mandatory detention without bond. Judges who have sided with ICE say this is a logical — even obvious — conclusion that would ensure people who successfully evade detection at the border aren’t given greater due process rights than those that present themselves to authorities soon after entering the country.

One of the judges who sided with the majority in the 2-1 opinion compared the policy to the Japanese internment camps during World War II.

“Mass detention of marginalized individuals without due process harkens back to some of the darkest moments in our country’s history,” wrote 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Nicole Berner, a Biden appointee, according to POLITICO.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Those shameful and abhorrent past detentions were limited in scope in comparison to the mandatory detention that the Government urges us today to find that Congress established thirty years ago in an ambiguously worded statutory provision. We decline to do so,” Berner continued.

Judge Barbara Keenan, an Obama appointee, joined Berner in the majority opinion.

Judge Allison Rushing, a Trump appointee, dissented, saying it’s not illegal for the Trump administration to use its full enforcement power when prior administrations refused to do so.

Newsweek has more:

The case stems from a 2025 policy shift by the Trump administration that sought to place many undocumented immigrants under a section of federal immigration law requiring detention during removal proceedings. Before that change, immigrants already living in the U.S. generally fell under a separate provision that allowed them to seek release through immigration bond hearings.

The plaintiffs, Oscar Enrique Lopez Garcia and Juan Jose Rivera, had each lived in the U.S. for decades before being detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in 2025. The government did not argue either man posed a danger to the community or a flight risk, but they were initially denied bond hearings under the administration’s new interpretation.

The Fourth Circuit concluded that immigrants in their position must be detained under a section of law that permits bond hearings rather than one requiring mandatory detention. The court therefore upheld lower-court rulings ordering that they be given the opportunity to seek release.

The decision comes as courts nationwide wrestle with the Trump administration’s detention policy.

The issue has rapidly become one of the most significant immigration battles moving through the federal courts because of its potential impact on millions of immigrants who entered the U.S. without inspection and remain in the country.

Several appeals courts have ruled against the administration’s position, while others have sided with it, creating a split that legal observers say makes Supreme Court review increasingly likely.

ADVERTISEMENT

What are your thoughts?

NATIONAL POLL: Should The United States Use FORCE To Secure The Border? vote now

TAP HERE TO ADD YOUR VOTE

 

Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.