Cases · No-bond detention for people who entered without inspection
Jaciel Cirrus Rojas v. Samuel Olson / Scott Smith
Latest development
Seventh Circuit rejected mandatory-detention theory
As of July 30, 2026, the Seventh Circuit has reversed the denial of habeas relief and held that Cirrus Rojas is governed by section 1226(a), preserving access to bond hearings for this category of interior arrestees within the circuit.
- Status as of
- July 30, 2026
- Source
- Latest order
- Docket reviewed through
- July 30, 2026
About the case
Cirrus Rojas v. Olson is nationally important because it adds the Seventh Circuit to the fast-moving appellate split over the administration's effort to treat long-time interior arrestees who entered without inspection as mandatory-detention applicants for admission under INA section 1225(b)(2)(A). The panel held that section 1226(a), not section 1225(b)(2)(A), governs this category of detainees and reversed the denial of habeas relief. The opinion expressly aligns the Seventh Circuit with the Second, Sixth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits against the Fifth and Eighth Circuits.
Relief
Cirrus Rojas sought habeas relief requiring treatment under section 1226(a) so that the immigration judge's bond order could take effect rather than mandatory detention under section 1225(b)(2)(A).
What's next
The next major milestones are any government rehearing or Supreme Court filing and how the Supreme Court handles the widening mandatory-detention circuit split.
New on the docket, not yet reviewed
Nothing new since the last review.
Reviewed events
Seventh Circuit rejected no-bond mandatory detention for long-time interior arrestees
Jaciel Cirrus Rojas v. Samuel Olson / Scott Smith · 7th Cir. · Source
In the news
- Wisconsin Watch coverage of Seventh Circuit detention rulingWisconsin Watch · Jul 31, 2026
- Bloomberg Law coverage of Seventh Circuit detention rulingBloomberg Law · Jul 30, 2026
- ACLU case document pageAmerican Civil Liberties Union · Jul 30, 2026