The Philadelphia-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled today that the phrase “seeking admission” refers to people actively trying to gain entry into the country, not individuals who crossed the border years earlier and were later arrested in the U.S. interior. This decision blocks the Trump administration’s blanket mandatory detention policy for a majority of undocumented immigrants in the Third Circuit’s jurisdiction (Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and the U.S. Virgin Islands) and sets the stage for a likely Supreme Court confrontation.
What changed
The administration argued that people who entered illegally and never received formal admission remain “applicants for admission” and can therefore be detained under the mandatory detention provision regardless of how long they have lived in the country. The Third Circuit rejected this position.
The court held that the phrase “seeking admission” refers to people actively trying to gain entry into the country, not individuals who crossed the border years earlier and were later arrested in the U.S. interior. As a result, the court held that such individuals generally must be processed under Section 1226(a), making them eligible to request bond hearings.
The panel also found constitutional concerns. The Third Circuit also ruled that the government’s detention policy violated the Fifth Amendment, though the specifics of that holding will be critical for practitioners advising detained clients.
This ruling deepens a national circuit split: the New York-based Second Circuit, Atlanta-based 11th Circuit and Cincinnati-based 6th Circuit Court rejected ICE’s new interpretation of mandatory detention, while the New Orleans-based Fifth and the St. Louis-based Eighth Circuit sided with the government.
Why it matters
For practitioners in the Third Circuit, this ruling transforms detention strategy immediately. Previously, the government’s practice typically allowed people who entered the country illegally, but who were otherwise law-abiding, to at least receive a bond hearing and determine if they could remain in the community as their cases moved forward. The mandatory detention policy upended that. Now the Third Circuit has reinstated it—at least for clients who can establish they are not “seeking admission” but rather long-term U.S. residents.
The practical effect: a client detained by ICE in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, or Delaware who entered the country months or years ago can now file a motion in federal district court (via habeas corpus petition) or in removal proceedings, invoking this Third Circuit precedent to demand a bond hearing. Practitioners need not accept that a client will remain indefinitely detained without adjudication.
The ruling also signals judicial skepticism of the government’s reading of the statute. Over 370 federal judges across the country have also rejected the government’s position, and now a circuit court has aligned with that sentiment.
Way forward
-
If representing a detained client: File a habeas corpus petition (28 U.S.C. § 2241) in the federal district court where the client is detained, or raise a bond-hearing motion in removal proceedings. Cite this Third Circuit ruling to argue that Section 1226(a)—not the mandatory detention statute—governs eligibility for a hearing.
-
If litigating in Eastern District of Pennsylvania: Use this Third Circuit precedent in pending motions and appeals. District courts in Philadelphia have been granting release on individual habeas petitions; the Third Circuit ruling strengthens that trend and provides binding authority.
-
For advocacy and policy engagement: Note the widening circuit split. The Supreme Court is likely to grant certiorari before the end of the 2026–27 term. Practitioners should prepare for potential Supreme Court briefing or litigation strategy shifts if the high court reverses the Third Circuit.
-
Verify current detention status: Confirm with your client’s facility and the local ICE field office whether they have received guidance on implementing this ruling. Some jurisdictions may move slowly.
Disclaimer
This article explains a federal court ruling and is not legal advice. The information is drawn from news reporting and the court’s decision. Immigration law is complex, detention policy is rapidly evolving, and court decisions can be appealed or distinguished. Verify all guidance against the Third Circuit’s official decision and consult a licensed immigration attorney licensed in your jurisdiction before taking any action. Policy positions and judicial precedent can change without notice.