On March 26, 2026, a federal appeals court issued a ruling that expands the government's authority to detain immigrants without a bond hearing. This post explains the decision, its legal basis, and where the law currently stands.

Background

The case before the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals arose from the detention of Joaquin Herrera Avila, a Mexican national who was apprehended in Minneapolis in August 2025 for being present in the United States without legal authorization. He had resided in the country for a number of years without having sought naturalization, asylum, or refugee status. The Department of Homeland Security detained him without bond and initiated deportation proceedings.

Avila filed a petition seeking release and a bond hearing. A federal district court in Minnesota granted that petition, finding that because he had lived in the country for years without seeking admission, he was not subject to mandatory detention and was entitled to appear before an immigration judge. The government appealed.

The appeals court decision

In a 2-1 opinion, the 8th Circuit reversed the lower court's ruling. Writing for the majority, Circuit Court Judge Bobby E. Shepherd held that federal immigration law is clear that an "applicant for admission" includes any immigrant who is "seeking admission" into the United States. On that basis, the court found that Avila fell within the category of individuals subject to mandatory detention, making his petition unavailable to him.

Circuit Court Judge Ralph R. Erickson dissented. He noted that under the interpretations applied by courts and the five previous presidential administrations spanning the past 29 years, a person in Avila's circumstances would have been entitled to a bond hearing during deportation proceedings. Judge Erickson described the majority's reading of "alien seeking admission" as a novel interpretation, one that had not previously been adopted by courts or any prior administration, and which he argued would subject millions of individuals to mandatory detention.

THE CENTRAL LEGAL ISSUE
At the core of this case is whether the government is required to bring a detained immigrant before a neutral judge to assess the legality of their detention. This right is rooted in habeas corpus, a foundational legal principle that allows individuals to challenge their imprisonment through the courts

Context within current immigration litigation

This decision is the second from a federal appeals court to uphold the administration's position on this issue. Last month, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled that the Department of Homeland Security's policy of denying bond hearings to immigrants arrested across the country was consistent with both the Constitution and federal immigration law.

These rulings exist alongside a number of conflicting decisions from lower courts. In November 2024, a California district court ruled that detained immigrants with no criminal history are entitled to request a bond hearing, with implications for noncitizens held nationwide. Since January 2025, immigrants have filed more than 30,000 habeas corpus petitions in federal court challenging their detention, and many have been successful at the district court level.

HISTORICAL PRACTICE
Under prior administrations, most noncitizens with no criminal record who were apprehended away from the border had the opportunity to request a bond hearing. Bond was frequently granted to individuals who posed no flight risk and had no criminal convictions. Mandatory detention without a bond hearing was historically reserved for individuals apprehended at or near the border

Key legal terms

What happens next

The legal landscape on this issue remains unsettled. Appeals courts in the 5th and 8th Circuits have now sided with the government's position, while a number of lower court decisions have reached the opposite conclusion. Given the scale of the conflict across jurisdictions and the number of people affected, it is widely anticipated that the Supreme Court will ultimately need to resolve the question.

In the meantime, outcomes for individuals will continue to vary depending on the jurisdiction in which their case is heard and which circuit court has authority over that region.

Questions about your immigration case?
Immigration law is changing rapidly. If you have concerns about how recent court decisions may affect your situation, Saluja Law is available to provide guidance specific to your circumstances. Contact our office to schedule a consultation