The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that longtime undocumented immigrants are entitled to bond hearings while fighting deportation, comparing the Trump administration’s detention policy to the World War II internment of Japanese Americans. The 2-1 ruling marks ICE’s ninth loss at the appellate level in litigation over the policy.
What changed
The Fourth Circuit rejected the administration’s argument that millions of immigrants who entered the country unlawfully could be held in mandatory detention without access to bond hearings. The court concluded that immigrants detained in the interior of the country must be detained under a section of law that permits bond hearings rather than one requiring mandatory detention, and upheld lower-court rulings ordering they be given the opportunity to seek release.
The case involved two long-term residents—Oscar Enrique Lopez Garcia and Juan Jose Rivera—who had each lived in the U.S. for decades before being detained by ICE in 2025 without the government arguing either man posed a danger or flight risk, yet were initially denied bond hearings under the administration’s new interpretation.
Historically, mandatory detention under INA § 235(b) applied to noncitizens arriving at ports of entry, while noncitizens detained in the interior have been eligible for bond hearings under § 236. Last year, the Trump administration adopted a new reinterpretation declaring that anyone who entered without inspection must be detained without access to bond.
Why it matters
If you practice in the Fourth Circuit (Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, or West Virginia), this ruling is binding on all district courts and immigration judges in your circuit. The Fourth Circuit is now the ninth federal appeals court to find the policy unlawful, alongside hundreds of district courts.
The circuit split remains critical: The 2nd, 3rd, 6th, and now 4th Circuits hold that detainees get bond hearings, while the 5th and 8th uphold mandatory detention. Because ICE detention is heavily concentrated in Texas and Louisiana—both in the Fifth Circuit where mandatory detention was upheld—a huge number of detained people are held where courts have upheld mandatory detention.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case on June 15, 2026, with oral argument set for October 13, 2026. Until SCOTUS rules, where a client is detained determines their bond-hearing rights.
For practitioners: The Fourth Circuit affirmed lower-court orders requiring bond hearings for individuals who came as children or decades ago. Even clients with no criminal record and strong community ties who were denied bonds under the new policy should revisit their cases now.
Way forward
- File habeas corpus petitions in Fourth Circuit district courts on behalf of detained clients denied bond hearings under INA § 235(b). This ruling creates a presumption in your favor.
- Preserve appellate records if you have clients in other circuits (5th, 8th) facing mandatory detention. Circuit splits like this often trigger Supreme Court review within months.
- Monitor your jurisdiction. Check whether your circuit has ruled yet on this issue. If not, expect heightened client volatility as SCOTUS term approaches.
- Distinguish § 1226(c). Clients with criminal triggering § 1226(c) mandatory detention may still face different rules. Consult the Fourth Circuit’s opinion for the precise scope.
Disclaimer
This article is published by a software company, not a law firm, and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration law changes frequently and appeals-court rulings can be reversed, stayed, or superseded by higher courts or subsequent agency policy. You must consult a licensed immigration attorney licensed in your jurisdiction and verify all claims against the primary source linked above before relying on this summary in client work.