- The Fourth Circuit ruled bond hearings are required for two longtime residents detained inside the United States.
- The 2-1 decision rejected ICE guidance from July 8, 2025 that expanded mandatory detention.
- The ruling creates a 9-2 appellate split and adds pressure for Supreme Court review.
The Fourth Circuit Court ruled on September 10, 2026, that two longtime residents detained inside the United States are entitled to bond hearings, rejecting an ICE detention policy that subjected them to mandatory custody. The 2-1 decision came in Lopez Garcia v. Guadian, No. 25-07044.
The panel affirmed lower-court orders for Oscar Enrique Lopez Garcia and Juan Jose Rivera. The ruling marked the administration’s ninth straight appellate loss on the issue.
Judge Nicole Berner wrote the majority opinion with Judge Barbara Milano Keenan. Judge Allison Rushing dissented.
The case addresses whether federal detention law applies to people arrested inside the country years after entering. The decision also adds another appellate ruling to a dispute that the Department of Homeland Security has asked the Supreme Court to review.
Berner wrote that the policy would “implicate the constitutional due process rights of millions of noncitizens in our country, many of whom have lived, worked, and become integral parts of their communities, for years.”
She added:
“Mass detention of marginalized individuals without due process harkens back to some of the darkest moments in our country's history.”
The policy changed who ICE treated as subject to mandatory detention
The dispute centers on guidance that took effect on July 8, 2025. Its title was “Interim Guidance Regarding Detention Authority for Applicants for Admission.”
The guidance reclassified people who entered the United States without inspection as “applicants for admission.” That classification applied even when a person had lived in the country for years.
Under the administration’s interpretation, those residents could face mandatory detention without a hearing while their removal cases proceeded. The panel rejected that approach.
The opinion examined the relationship between INA § 235(b) and INA § 236(a). The administration relied on the first provision to impose mandatory custody. The court held that the detention law at issue applies to people arriving at the border, not immigrants who entered years earlier and were later arrested inside the country.
Before the guidance, detention without bond generally applied to people arrested at or near the border. People held in the interior could generally seek review under INA § 236(a).
The ruling therefore rejected treating longtime interior residents as arriving at the border for detention purposes. It affirmed lower-court orders requiring review of continued custody.
Two longtime residents challenged detention after interior arrests
Lopez Garcia came from Guatemala as a child in 1996. Rivera left El Salvador in 2005.
Both men had lived in the United States for decades before they sought detention review. Their cases reached the appeals court after lower courts ordered the government to provide hearings.
The panel affirmed those orders. The ruling concerns custody, not the final result of either man’s removal case.
Berner’s opinion also described the wider population potentially affected by the policy. It referred to people who had lived and worked in the United States and become integral parts of their communities over many years.
The majority treated that history as relevant to the constitutional concerns raised by automatic detention. Rushing’s dissent reflected the panel’s disagreement over the government’s reading of its detention authority.
The ruling leaves the administration facing a 9-2 appellate split
The Fourth Circuit joined eight other circuits that rejected the administration’s interpretation. Only the Fifth and Eighth Circuits have accepted it.
| Appellate position | Courts identified in the research | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Rejected the administration’s interpretation | Fourth Circuit and eight other circuits | Interior residents receive detention review |
| Accepted the administration’s interpretation | Fifth and Eighth Circuits | Mandatory detention theory accepted |
| Overall division | 9-2 against the administration | Supreme Court review requested |
The decision was the government’s ninth straight appellate loss on the question. A published analysis described the Fourth Circuit as the final regional appellate court to rule on the issue.
The resulting 9-2 division gives the Supreme Court a conflict over the meaning of the detention provisions. DHS has already asked the court to review the issue.
The disagreement focuses on whether INA § 235(b), which the administration invokes for mandatory detention, reaches people who entered years ago and were later arrested in the interior. The Fourth Circuit said that provision does not govern those circumstances.
The majority tied the dispute to older detention practices
Berner’s opinion invoked the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. It also referred to the detention of Chinese immigrants under the 1892 Geary Act.
The opinion described the Japanese American internment comparison as a “historical stain.” The majority used the historical references while addressing detention without individualized review.
Berner connected the policy’s potential reach to residents who had established long-term ties to their communities. Her constitutional warning extended beyond the two men whose detention orders the panel reviewed.
The majority’s historical discussion accompanied its treatment of due process. The 2-1 decision nevertheless controls the Fourth Circuit’s ruling in the case.
The Department of Homeland Security said it was “confident in its legal position regarding mandatory detention.” The department also noted that it had asked the Supreme Court to review the issue.
A Supreme Court review would place the interpretation of INA § 235(b) and INA § 236(a) against the existing appellate division. The lower-court orders for Lopez Garcia and Rivera remain affirmed, giving both men access to detention review.
This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified immigration attorney about your specific case.
