Passim

Issues › Detention

No-bond detention for people who entered without inspection

Varies by circuit

Split by circuit

Supreme Court review granted October 1, 2026

Nine federal appeals courts (the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Circuits) have held that § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2)(A), governs these detentions, so a bond hearing is available. The Fifth and Eighth Circuits have upheld the no-bond policy. The Supreme Court granted review in No. 26-104; the government's merits brief is due November 30, 2026, and no argument date is set.

Status as of
November 2, 2026
Dockets checked
November 3, 2026

The policy

Since July 2025, DHS has treated people who entered the United States without inspection and were later arrested inside the country as applicants for admission who must be detained without bond under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). The Board of Immigration Appeals adopted that reading in Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA 2025). Detained people have challenged it in habeas petitions and class actions, arguing that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) governs their detention, which lets an immigration judge consider release on bond. The question has reached every numbered federal court of appeals, and on October 1, 2026 the Supreme Court agreed to decide it in Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, No. 26-104.

Court rulings

Rulings on the policy by court. Stay and procedural rulings say what the court did and aren't counted in the circuit row.

  1. 1Against
  2. 2Against
  3. 3Against
  4. 4Against
  5. 5Upheld
  6. 6Against
  7. 7Against
  8. 8Upheld
  9. 9Against
  10. 10Against
  11. 11Against
  12. DCNo ruling
  • Ruled against the policy
  • Upheld the policy
  • Mixed or split
  • No merits ruling tracked
CourtRulingCaseNote
1st Cir. Ruled against the policy Guerrero Orellana v. MonizNo. 25-2152 / 26-1094 · Aug 13, 2026 Affirmed a classwide judgment for a Massachusetts class, 2–1. Mandate issued October 6, 2026.
2d Cir. Ruled against the policy Cunha v. FredenNo. 25-3141 · Apr 28, 2026 Rehearing en banc denied September 25, 2026. Supreme Court granted review October 1, 2026 (No. 26-104).
3d Cir. Ruled against the policy Gabriel Antonio Buele Morocho v. Warden Philadelphia FDC / Wanderson Lopes De Andrade v. Director Philadelphia Field Office ICENo. 26-1150 / 26-1454 · Aug 28, 2026 Held the detentions without hearings violated the INA and due process and affirmed release orders, 2–1.
4th Cir. Ruled against the policy Oscar Enrique Lopez Garcia v. Robert Guadian / Juan Jose Rivera v. Robert GuadianNo. 25-7044 / 25-7050 · Sep 10, 2026 Affirmed habeas relief in consolidated appeals, 2–1.
5th Cir. Held the statute requires detention without bond Victor Buenrostro-Mendez v. BondiNo. 25-20496 · Feb 6, 2026 Held § 1225(b)(2)(A) requires detention without bond, 2–1; rehearing en banc denied April 9, 2026. Cert petition No. 26-43 pending; the docket shows no action after the September 28 conference.
5th Cir. Held no due-process right to a bond hearing Ignacio Sosnava Rodriguez v. Sylvester Ortega / Alejandro Villegas Angel v. Markwayne Mullin / Miguel Angel Gomez Alvarado v. Miguel VergaraNo. 26-50183 / 26-50219 / 26-50221 · Oct 23, 2026 A different question: due process, not which statute applies. Taking § 1225(b)(2)(A) as applying under Buenrostro-Mendez, the en banc court held three detainees had no due-process right to bond hearings and vacated their habeas grants.
6th Cir. Ruled against the policy Juan Manuel Lopez-Campos v. Kevin Raycraft / Juan Carlos Sanchez Alvarez v. Markwayne Mullin / Jose Daniel Contreras-Cervantes v. Kevin Raycraft / Jesus Jose Pizarro Reyes v. Kevin RaycraftNo. 25-1965 / 25-1969 / 25-1978 / 25-1982 · May 11, 2026 Affirmed habeas relief, 2–1. Government cert petition No. 25-1415 pending; the docket shows no action after the September 28 conference.
7th Cir. Ruled against the policy Jaciel Cirrus Rojas v. Samuel Olson / Scott SmithNo. 25-3127 · Jul 30, 2026 Reversed the denial of habeas relief. The earlier Castañon Nava panel (May 5, 2026) produced no majority on the statutory question.
8th Cir. Upheld the policy Joaquin Herrera Avila v. BondiNo. 25-3248 · Mar 25, 2026 Joined the Fifth Circuit, 2–1, and reversed a grant of habeas relief.
9th Cir. Ruled against the policy Rodriguez Vazquez v. BostockNo. 25-6842 · Jul 30, 2026 Affirmed a classwide judgment for a Tacoma class, 2–1. Mandate stayed October 6, 2026 pending No. 26-104; the published opinion remains circuit precedent. government cert petition No. 26-568 filed October 28.
10th Cir. Ruled against the policy Rigoberto Santillan Quiroz v. MullinNo. 26-6019 · Jun 30, 2026 Reversed the denial of habeas relief; on remand the government must give a bond hearing within seven days or release him. Mandate issued July 22, 2026.
11th Cir. Ruled against the policy Fidencio Hernandez Alvarez v. Warden, Federal Detention Center Miami / Ismael Cerro Perez v. Assistant Field Office DirectorNo. 25-14065 / 25-14075 · May 6, 2026 Affirmed habeas relief, 2–1. The government's petition for rehearing en banc is held in abeyance pending No. 26-104 (October 13, 2026).

Who's covered

  • Circuit precedent: 1st Cir., 2d Cir., 3d Cir., 4th Cir., 6th Cir., 7th Cir., 9th Cir., 10th Cir., 11th Cir.

    Published decisions in these nine circuits hold that people who entered without inspection and were arrested inside the country are detained under § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2)(A), so an immigration judge can consider them for release on bond. In the Ninth Circuit the mandate in Rodriguez Vazquez is stayed pending No. 26-104, which doesn't by itself suspend the published opinion as circuit precedent, and in the Eleventh Circuit the government's petition for rehearing en banc in Hernandez Alvarez is held in abeyance pending the same case.

    Source

  • Circuit precedent: 5th Cir.

    Fifth Circuit precedent (Buenrostro-Mendez, February 6, 2026) holds that § 1225(b)(2)(A) requires detention without bond for people who entered without inspection; the court denied rehearing en banc on April 9, 2026. On October 23, 2026 the en banc court separately held that three such detainees had no due-process right to bond hearings and vacated their habeas grants. Release orders in Tolentino-Rodriguez and two companion appeals are stayed pending appeal.

    Source

  • Circuit precedent: 8th Cir.

    Eighth Circuit precedent (Avila v. Bondi, March 25, 2026) holds that § 1225(b)(2)(A) requires detention without bond for people who entered without inspection and were arrested inside the country. The divided panel reversed a grant of habeas relief.

    Source

  • Certified class · Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz

    Massachusetts class (Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz). On December 19, 2025 the district court declared that class members are detained under § 1226(a) and must be considered for bond, and on January 21, 2026 it clarified that the class includes anyone who met the definition on or after September 22, 2025 or meets it later. The First Circuit affirmed August 13, 2026; its mandate issued October 6. A September 22, 2026 order requires 72 hours' notice before a class member who has requested a bond hearing is transferred outside the First Circuit.

    All people who are arrested or detained in Massachusetts, or are detained in a geographical area over which, as of September 22, 2025, an Immigration Court located in Massachusetts is the administrative control court, or who are otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of an Immigration Court located in Massachusetts, where: (a) the person is not in any Expedited Removal process under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1), does not have an Expedited Removal order under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1), and is not currently in proceedings before an immigration judge due to having been found to have a credible fear of persecution under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii); (b) for the person’s most recent entry into the United States, the government has not alleged that the person was admitted into the United States and has not alleged that person was paroled into the United States pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A) at the time of entry or after continuous detention upon arrival; (c) the person does not meet the criteria for mandatory detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c); (d) the person is not subject to post-final order detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231; and (e) the person is not a person whose most recent arrest occurred at the border while they were arriving in the United States and has been continuously detained thereafter.

    Certification order

  • Certified class · Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock

    Tacoma class (Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock). On September 30, 2025 the district court declared that class members are detained under § 1226(a); the Ninth Circuit affirmed on July 30, 2026, and its mandate is stayed pending No. 26-104. An October 1, 2026 order requires 72 hours' notice before a potential class member who has requested a bond hearing is moved to a facility in the Fifth or Eighth Circuit, until further order or the Supreme Court's decision in No. 26-104.

    Bond Denial Class: All noncitizens without lawful status detained at the Northwest ICE Processing Center who (1) have entered or will enter the United States without inspection, (2) are not apprehended upon arrival, (3) are not or will not be subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), § 1225(b)(1), or § 1231 at the time the noncitizen is scheduled for or requests a bond hearing.

    Certification order

  • Certified class · Lazaro Maldonado Bautista v. Ernesto Santacruz Jr.

    Class defined nationwide (Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, C.D. Cal.). The December 18, 2025 judgment declares class members detained under § 1226(a) and entitled to bond consideration, and vacates DHS's July 8, 2025 interim detention guidance. The March 31, 2026 stay limits this class order and judgment to C.D. Cal.: the Ninth Circuit stayed both "insofar as they extend beyond the Central District of California." Later orders in appeals Nos. 25-7958 and 26-1044 haven't been confirmed for this page.

    Bond Eligible Class: All noncitizens in the United States without lawful status who (1) have entered or will enter the United States without inspection; (2) were not or will not be apprehended upon arrival; and (3) are not or will not be subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), § 1225(b)(1), or § 1231 at the time the Department of Homeland Security makes an initial custody determination.

    Certification order

For practitioners

  • Supreme Court schedule in No. 26-104: the question granted is whether § 1225(b)(2)(A) mandates detention pending removal proceedings of people present in the United States without having been admitted. On October 28, 2026 the Court extended the deadlines: the joint appendix and the government's merits brief are due November 30, 2026, and the respondent's brief January 13, 2027. No argument date is set. [1][2]
  • Other petitions and held appeals: the dockets in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Blanche, No. 26-43, and Putra v. Lopez-Campos, No. 25-1415, record no action since the September 28, 2026 conference. In Quinones v. Rodriguez Vazquez, No. 26-568 (filed October 28), the government asks the Court to hold the petition pending No. 26-104. On October 6 the Ninth Circuit withdrew its en banc briefing order in Rodriguez Vazquez and stayed its mandate; on October 13 the Eleventh Circuit held the en banc petition in Hernandez Alvarez in abeyance. [1][2][3][4][5]
  • Guerrero Orellana: a September 15, 2026 order (ECF 206) stayed constitutional Counts II–IV and dismissed the APA claim to vacate Matter of Yajure Hurtado (Count V); the statutory class judgment stands. Transfers: a September 22 order requires 72 hours’ notice to the class member, attorney and class counsel before ICE moves a class member who requested a bond hearing outside the First Circuit; the October 20 reconsideration motion shows no ruling. An October 1 order in Rodriguez Vazquez requires the same notice before such a potential class member goes to the Fifth or Eighth Circuit. [1][2][3][4]
  • In the Fifth Circuit, the en banc court's October 23, 2026 decision in Sosnava Rodriguez decides a due-process question: whether people held under § 1225(b)(2)(A) must get individualized bond hearings. It held they need not and that the length of the petitioners' detention raised no constitutional issue on those records, and it directed the mandate to issue forthwith. Which statute applies was settled in the circuit by Buenrostro-Mendez. [1][2]
  • Related: the 2022 Castañon Nava consent decree gives a separate route to release for people arrested without a warrant in the ICE Chicago area. Its settlement class: "All current and future persons arrested without a warrant for a civil violation of U.S. immigration laws within the area of responsibility of the ICE Chicago Field Office." On May 5, 2026 the Seventh Circuit affirmed release of confirmed class members arrested in violation of the decree. That relief rests on the decree, not on a § 1225 or § 1226 holding; Judge Pryor concurred in the judgment without reaching the statute. [1][2]

In plain language

If you entered the United States without being inspected at the border and ICE later arrested you inside the country, the government's position since 2025 is that you must stay detained and can't get a bond hearing. Most federal appeals courts have said that's wrong and that people in this situation can ask an immigration judge for bond. The appeals courts for Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi (Fifth Circuit) and for Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota (Eighth Circuit) have agreed with the government. The Supreme Court has agreed to decide the question but hasn't set a date to hear it. Until then, what applies to you can depend on where you're held and whether you're part of a class action. An immigration lawyer can tell you what applies to you.

Find free or low-cost legal help

New on the dockets, not yet reviewed

Court actions picked up from the dockets after the last review. They're quoted as filed and don't change the status until they're checked against the order.

Nothing new since the last review.

How we got here

  1. Supreme Court extended mandatory-detention merits briefing

    Cunha v. Freden · 2d Cir. · Source

  2. Government petitioned for Supreme Court review of mandatory-detention class judgment

    Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock · 9th Cir. · Source

  4. Government sought reconsideration of transfer-notice requirement

    Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz · 1st Cir. · Source

  5. Eleventh Circuit placed the en banc rehearing petition in abeyance pending Supreme Court review

    Fidencio Hernandez Alvarez v. Warden, Federal Detention Center Miami / Ismael Cerro Perez v. Assistant Field Office Director · 11th Cir. · Source

  6. First Circuit mandate recorded in district court

    Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz · 1st Cir. · Source

  7. Supreme Court granted review of mandatory-detention split

    Cunha v. Freden · 2d Cir. · Source

  8. Second Circuit denied rehearing en banc in mandatory-detention case

    Cunha v. Freden · 2d Cir. · Source

  9. Court required 72-hour notice of specified transfers and revised class notices

    Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz · 1st Cir. · Source

  10. Court stayed constitutional counts and dismissed separate APA vacatur claim

    Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz · 1st Cir. · Source

  11. Fourth Circuit rejected no-bond mandatory detention for long-time interior arrestees

    Oscar Enrique Lopez Garcia v. Robert Guadian / Juan Jose Rivera v. Robert Guadian · 4th Cir. · Source

Show all 44

  1. Supreme Court distributed Second Circuit detention petition for conference

    Cunha v. Freden · 2d Cir. · Source

  2. Supreme Court distributed Fifth Circuit detention petition for conference

    Victor Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi · 5th Cir. · Source

  4. Fifth Circuit granted a stay pending appeal and consolidated the appeals; initial hearing en banc denied

    Jessica Tolentino-Rodriguez v. Todd Blanche · 5th Cir. · Source

  5. Government moved for a stay pending appeal, consolidation and initial hearing en banc

    Jessica Tolentino-Rodriguez v. Todd Blanche · 5th Cir. · Source

  6. First Circuit affirmed classwide detention relief

    Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz · 1st Cir. · Source

  7. Seventh Circuit rejected no-bond mandatory detention for long-time interior arrestees

    Jaciel Cirrus Rojas v. Samuel Olson / Scott Smith · 7th Cir. · Source

  8. Ninth Circuit affirmed classwide detention ruling

    Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock · 9th Cir. · Source

  9. Government sought Supreme Court review of Second Circuit mandatory-detention ruling

    Cunha v. Freden · 2d Cir. · Source

  10. District court granted habeas and ordered release on substantive due process grounds

    Jessica Tolentino-Rodriguez v. Todd Blanche · 5th Cir. · Source

  13. Petitioners sought Supreme Court review of Fifth Circuit mandatory-detention ruling

    Victor Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi · 5th Cir. · Source

  16. Tenth Circuit rejected no-bond mandatory detention for long-time interior arrestees

    Rigoberto Santillan Quiroz v. Mullin · 10th Cir. · Source

  20. Eleventh Circuit rejected no-bond mandatory detention for long-time interior arrestees

    Fidencio Hernandez Alvarez v. Warden, Federal Detention Center Miami / Ismael Cerro Perez v. Assistant Field Office Director · 11th Cir. · Source

  21. Seventh Circuit issued fractured mandatory-detention and consent-decree decision

    Margarito Castanon Nava v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security · 7th Cir. · Source

  22. Second Circuit rejected no-bond mandatory detention for long-time interior arrestees

    Cunha v. Freden · 2d Cir. · Source

  23. Ninth Circuit stayed the nationwide class judgment outside the Central District pending appeal

    Lazaro Maldonado Bautista v. Ernesto Santacruz Jr. · C.D. Cal. · Source

  24. Eighth Circuit joined Fifth Circuit on section 1225(b)(2) detention

    Joaquin Herrera Avila v. Bondi · 8th Cir. · Source

  25. Ninth Circuit entered an administrative stay outside the Central District

    Lazaro Maldonado Bautista v. Ernesto Santacruz Jr. · C.D. Cal. · Source

  26. Court denied the government's application for a stay

    Lazaro Maldonado Bautista v. Ernesto Santacruz Jr. · C.D. Cal. · Source

  27. Court enforced the judgment and vacated Matter of Yajure Hurtado

    Lazaro Maldonado Bautista v. Ernesto Santacruz Jr. · C.D. Cal. · Source

  28. Fifth Circuit upheld mandatory-detention reading in consolidated appeal

    Victor Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi · 5th Cir. · Source

  29. District court granted classwide section 1226(a) relief

    Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz · 1st Cir. · Source

  30. Court entered final judgment for the nationwide class

    Lazaro Maldonado Bautista v. Ernesto Santacruz Jr. · C.D. Cal. · Source

  31. Court certified a nationwide Bond Eligible Class

    Lazaro Maldonado Bautista v. Ernesto Santacruz Jr. · C.D. Cal. · Source

  32. District court ordered release or bond hearing for Guerrero Orellana

    Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz · 1st Cir. · Source

Status changes

Selected changes since April 28, 2026, each with the order behind it.

  • Split by circuit. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in No. 26-104 Source
  • Split by circuit. The Second Circuit rejected the policy in Cunha, against the Fifth (Feb 6) and Eighth (Mar 25) Circuits Source

Cases (15)

CaseCourtLatestAs of
Cunha v. FredenNo. 25-3141 · Lead case2d Cir.Supreme Court granted review of mandatory-detention splitOct 28, 2026
Fidencio Hernandez Alvarez v. Warden, Federal Detention Center Miami / Ismael Cerro Perez v. Assistant Field Office DirectorNo. 25-14065 / 25-1407511th Cir.Eleventh Circuit rejected mandatory-detention theoryOct 13, 2026
Gabriel Antonio Buele Morocho v. Warden Philadelphia FDC / Wanderson Lopes De Andrade v. Director Philadelphia Field Office ICENo. 26-1150 / 26-14543d Cir.Third Circuit affirmed release orders in no-bond mandatory-detention appealsAug 28, 2026
Guerrero Orellana v. MonizNo. 25-2152 / 26-1094 · Class action1st Cir.Classwide bond relief affirmed; district transfer-notice order faces reconsiderationOct 20, 2026
Ignacio Sosnava Rodriguez v. Sylvester Ortega / Alejandro Villegas Angel v. Markwayne Mullin / Miguel Angel Gomez Alvarado v. Miguel VergaraNo. 26-50183 / 26-50219 / 26-502215th Cir.En banc Fifth Circuit reversed detention habeas judgmentsOct 23, 2026
Jaciel Cirrus Rojas v. Samuel Olson / Scott SmithNo. 25-31277th Cir.Seventh Circuit rejected mandatory-detention theoryJul 30, 2026
Jessica Tolentino-Rodriguez v. Todd BlancheNo. 26-20424 / 26-20427 / 26-204285th Cir.Fifth Circuit stayed S.D. Tex. release orders pending appealAug 27, 2026
Joaquin Herrera Avila v. BondiNo. 25-32488th Cir.Eighth Circuit joined Fifth Circuit on mandatory detentionMar 25, 2026
Juan Manuel Lopez-Campos v. Kevin Raycraft / Juan Carlos Sanchez Alvarez v. Markwayne Mullin / Jose Daniel Contreras-Cervantes v. Kevin Raycraft / Jesus Jose Pizarro Reyes v. Kevin RaycraftNo. 25-1965 / 25-1969 / 25-1978 / 25-19826th Cir.Sixth Circuit detention petition distributed for Supreme Court conferenceSep 14, 2026
Lazaro Maldonado Bautista v. Ernesto Santacruz Jr.No. 5:25-cv-01873 / 25-7958 / 26-1044 · Class actionC.D. Cal.Ninth Circuit stayed the nationwide bond-hearing class judgment outside the Central District of CaliforniaOct 31, 2026
Margarito Castanon Nava v. U.S. Department of Homeland SecurityNo. 25-3050 · Class action7th Cir.Seventh Circuit split over mandatory-detention theory in Chicago ICE class caseMay 5, 2026
Oscar Enrique Lopez Garcia v. Robert Guadian / Juan Jose Rivera v. Robert GuadianNo. 25-7044 / 25-70504th Cir.Fourth Circuit rejected mandatory-detention theorySep 10, 2026
Rigoberto Santillan Quiroz v. MullinNo. 26-601910th Cir.Tenth Circuit rejected mandatory-detention theoryJun 30, 2026
Rodriguez Vazquez v. BostockNo. 25-6842 · Class action9th Cir.Government sought Supreme Court review of classwide detention rulingOct 29, 2026
Victor Buenrostro-Mendez v. BondiNo. 25-204965th Cir.Fifth Circuit detention petition distributed for Supreme Court conferenceSep 14, 2026

In the news

Every status statement on this page links to the order it rests on. Docket entries marked "not yet reviewed" are quoted as filed. How we track litigation