On September 10, 2026, the Fourth Circuit Court rejected the Trump administration’s policy of detaining longtime residents without bond hearings, delivering ICE its ninth straight appellate defeat. The 2-1 decision affirmed that both men in the case are entitled to bond hearings and pushed the dispute closer to Supreme Court review.
- The panel rejected ICE guidance issued in July 2025 titled “Interim Guidance Regarding Detention Authority for Applicants for Admission”, which reclassified long-term undocumented residents as “applicants for admission” subject to mandatory detention without bond.
- Writing for the majority, Judge Nicole Berner said, “mass detention of marginalized individuals without due process harkens back to some of the darkest moments in our country’s history.”
- The ruling was a 2-1 decision, with the majority holding that both detained men are entitled to bond hearings.
- The First Circuit rejected the government no-bond theory, ruling that detained immigrants in New England deserve bond hearings.
- The court determined that mandatory detention laws for border arrivals do not apply to noncitizens already living inside the country.
- Immigration judges must now conduct individualized risk assessments rather than enforcing automatic detention for this specific category.
A divided First Circuit panel on Aug. 13 rejected the government's no-bond theory in Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz, saying detained immigrants in New England who entered without inspection are entitled to bond hearings. The court upheld the lower-court ruling.
The panel said the government was wrong to treat them as if they were still seeking entry at the border. It said 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) does not apply. The detainees fall under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) instead. Release comes after a bond hearing. Mandatory detention ends.
Judge Lara Montecalvo wrote for the majority.
"Over three decades, five administrations implemented the disputed statutes just as we conclude today that their texts require."
History pointed the other way.
Judge Joshua Dunlap dissented. He said "applicants for admission" should include anyone who has not been formally admitted. He read the statute differently. He lost.
Adriana Lafaille, managing attorney at the ACLU of Massachusetts, said:
"This ruling affirms that the Trump administration cannot unilaterally rewrite federal statutes to suit its political agenda. The federal government must follow the law, provide bond hearings to class members, and allow those who pose no danger or flight risk to be released."
The group said the decision protects thousands of people arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in New England. Families can ask for release now.
Automatic detention gives way to hearings and bond notices
The ruling does not guarantee release. Immigration judges can still deny bond if they find danger or flight risk. But automatic detention is gone for this category. No bond is automatic now.
| Before the ruling | After the ruling |
|---|---|
| Mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) | Bond hearings under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) |
| No individualized review | Judges weigh danger and flight risk |
| ICE detention continued automatically | Release can follow bond |
The order also requires the government to tell detainees about their rights in English and Spanish and to update the Online Detainee Locator System to show bond eligibility status. In 2026, bond averages between $5,000 and $10,000. That money matters.
The split now runs through seven circuits and the district courts
The policy reached inside the region. It grew from a July 2025 DHS policy later made binding by the Board of Immigration Appeals in Matter of Yajure Hurtado. Many detainees have lived here for years. Some have U.S. citizen children. The policy had been used to reclassify noncitizens already living in the United States as if they were arriving at the border for the first time. Five jurisdictions are covered: Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Puerto Rico.
| Side of split | Circuits |
|---|---|
| Rejecting the theory | First, Second, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh |
| Backing mandatory detention | Fifth, Eighth |
At the district-court level, roughly 420 federal judges have rejected the policy, compared with 47 who have supported it. The split looks deep.
Habeas filings and Supreme Court review are next
That makes the court the seventh federal appellate court to reject the administration's categorical no-bond policy. The decision directly blocks a detention rule that had been used to hold many longtime residents without individualized hearings. The pressure keeps building.
After the ruling, immigration lawyers began filing a wave of federal habeas corpus petitions to get immediate hearings for people still detained under the old policy. A consolidated case is expected in the October 2026 term. The next filing wave could be large.
