The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has ruled that immigrants who entered the United States unlawfully years ago cannot automatically be held without bond under a law the government has increasingly relied upon since 2025, upholding orders requiring the release of two longtime U.S. residents detained by ICE without bond hearings in a 2-1 decision issued Friday. The ruling creates a growing split among federal appellate courts over whether the administration can use a border detention statute to hold immigrants arrested years after entering the country, a conflict that increasingly appears destined for Supreme Court review.
What changed
Beginning in 2025, the government expanded its use of mandatory detention, arguing that immigrants who had never been formally admitted to the United States could be held without bond while their removal proceedings continued. The Third Circuit disagreed with this interpretation.
At issue is whether immigrants who crossed the border unlawfully years ago and have since lived in the U.S. interior remain “applicants for admission” who can therefore be detained under the mandatory detention provision regardless of how long they have lived in the country.
The Third Circuit 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, noting that Congress’s use of the word “seeking” implies a present and ongoing effort to gain admission.
As a result, the court held that such individuals generally must be processed under Section 1226(a), making them eligible to request bond hearings. Section 1226(a) allows immigration judges to consider release on bond if the individual is not considered a danger to the community or a flight risk.
The court concluded that detention of the two respondents violated both the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and constitutional due process protections.
Why it matters
If upheld or adopted across the circuits, this ruling narrows the government’s ability to apply mandatory detention to one of its key target populations: noncitizens arrested years after entering without inspection.
The 8th and 5th Circuit courts sided with the Trump administration earlier this spring, while the New York-based 2nd Circuit court ruled against the administration last week, setting up a split and raising the possibility of Supreme Court review. The Third Circuit’s decision adds another voice questioning the government’s detention stance and increases the likelihood of eventual Supreme Court intervention.
For your clients detained under Section 1225(b)(2)(A) who have lived in the U.S. for years: this ruling provides legal leverage to argue for reclassification under Section 1226(a) and an opportunity to seek bond. The “seeking admission” language now has judicial support in the Third Circuit’s jurisdiction (Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and the U.S. Virgin Islands).
However, conflicting rulings from other circuits mean the outcome remains outcome-dependent on jurisdiction. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) issued a September 5, 2025 precedential decision, Matter of Yajure Hurtado, holding that immigration judges lack authority to hear bond requests or grant bond to people who are present in the United States without admission. This BIA decision conflicts with the Third Circuit ruling and will likely fuel the circuit split heading to the Supreme Court.
Way forward
-
Review current detention packets. If you represent a client detained in the Third Circuit under § 1225(b)(2)(A) who entered years ago and has been living in the U.S., file or renew a habeas corpus petition arguing for reclassification under § 1226(a) using the Third Circuit’s “seeking admission” language.
-
Monitor jurisdictional splits. Track which circuit covers your client’s case. Rulings now favor bond eligibility in the 2nd and 3rd Circuits but support mandatory detention in the 5th and 8th. Supreme Court review is likely within 12–18 months.
-
Document ties to the community. Strengthen bond arguments by emphasizing years of residence, employment, family ties, and lack of flight risk—the factors immigration judges must consider under § 1226(a).
-
Watch for Supreme Court docket. Cases from conflicting circuits are now queued for potential certiorari. Early Supreme Court briefing may begin in late 2026 or early 2027.
Disclaimer
This article is provided for informational purposes by a software company, not a law firm, and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration law is complex and jurisdiction-dependent. Always consult a licensed immigration attorney in your jurisdiction and verify the current status of these rulings and BIA precedents before relying on them in client representation. Policy and court decisions can change without notice; confirm all citations against the primary sources linked above before filing.