The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has ruled that the government can continue to detain immigrants without bond, handing a major victory to the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement priorities. This marks the second federal appeals court to rule in favor of the administration on this issue, following a similar decision from the Fifth U.S. Circuit earlier this year.
What changed
A panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis overturned a lower court ruling that required an undocumented immigrant arrested for lacking legal documents to receive a bond hearing before an immigration judge. The case involved Joaquin Herrera Avila of Mexico, who was apprehended in Minneapolis in August 2025 for lacking legal documents authorizing his admission into the United States. The Department of Homeland Security detained Avila without bond and began deportation proceedings.
A federal judge in Minnesota had granted Avila’s petition for a bond hearing, finding that the law authorized detention without bond only when a person seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to admission—and finding this was not the case for Avila because he had lived in the country for years without seeking naturalization, asylum or refugee status and thus wasn’t “seeking admission.” The Eighth Circuit reversed, holding that INA § 235(b)(2)(A) mandates detention without bond for noncitizens who entered the United States without inspection and were never lawfully admitted.
Why it matters
This decision fundamentally expands the government’s detention authority across the Eighth Circuit’s seven-state jurisdiction (Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska). The ruling could impact more than 1,000 immigration detention cases in Minnesota alone, according to a source in the U.S. Attorney’s office in that state.
Historically, bond was often granted to those without criminal convictions who were not flight risks, and mandatory detention was limited to recent border crossers. Under this new ruling, an undocumented immigrant apprehended anywhere in the circuit now faces mandatory detention without bond.
For immigration practitioners, the change is stark: In the past, undocumented immigrants who lived in the U.S. for years had typically been eligible for bond hearings where they could ask an immigration judge to let them fight their deportation cases without remaining detained. But the Trump administration has argued that anyone who entered the U.S. illegally is subject to mandatory deportation, unless immigration authorities grant them parole on humanitarian or public interest grounds. This ruling validates that argument within the Eighth Circuit.
Way forward
If you represent a noncitizen arrested in the Eighth Circuit without lawful admission status:
-
Reassess detention strategy. A bond hearing is no longer a default entitlement. Focus instead on parole eligibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(C), which allows DHS to release someone on humanitarian grounds or for public interest.
-
Develop parole applications early. With mandatory detention now the rule, parole is your primary tool. Prepare detailed factual submissions on humanitarian ties, family hardship, employment, and community integration.
-
Monitor for Supreme Court review. Multiple circuits are now in tension on this issue (Fifth and Eighth upholding detention; litigation ongoing in the Ninth). The Supreme Court may ultimately decide whether mandatory detention applies in the interior.
-
Verify jurisdiction. If your client is detained outside the Fifth or Eighth Circuits, lower-court or circuit-level decisions may still require bond hearings. Confirm the controlling precedent in your circuit.
Disclaimer
This article is published by Fola, a software company, not a law firm. It does not constitute legal advice. Immigration law is complex and enforcement decisions can change without notice. Consult a licensed immigration attorney in your jurisdiction for advice specific to your case. You should verify the information in this article against the primary court decision linked above and against current guidance from USCIS, EOIR, and your circuit court.