Category
Pre-Removal Detention
Habeas challenges to civil immigration detention before a final order of removal — mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), discretionary custody under § 1226(a), and the contested reach of § 1225(b)(2) following the BIA's 2025 reclassification of long-resident noncitizens as "applicants for admission."
Hernandez Alvarez v. Warden: The Eleventh Circuit Confines § 1225(b) to Those Actually “Seeking Admission”
Two noncitizens arrested at traffic stops in the Southeast were held without bond as “applicants for admission.” The Eleventh Circuit affirmed habeas relief, holding that § 1225(b)(2)(A) reaches only those actually seeking admission — not everyone merely present in the country.
Cunha v. Freden: The Second Circuit Becomes the First Court of Appeals to Reject the § 1225(b) Mandatory-Detention Theory
A Brazilian who entered without inspection two decades ago and applied for asylum was held without bond under the 2025 reclassification theory. The Second Circuit became the first court of appeals to reject it, holding that interior-arrested noncitizens are detained under § 1226(a) and remain bond-eligible.
Herrera Avila v. Bondi: The Eighth Circuit Joins the Fifth, and the Mandatory-Detention Split Hardens
A Mexican national who had lived in the United States for roughly twenty years was detained without bond after a Minneapolis traffic stop. A divided Eighth Circuit reversed his habeas grant, holding that any unadmitted noncitizen present in the country is an “applicant for admission” subject to mandatory detention.
Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi: The Fifth Circuit Sides With the Government on EWI Detention
A divided Fifth Circuit panel held that all noncitizens present without admission — regardless of length of residence or community ties — are “applicants for admission” subject to mandatory § 1225(b)(2) detention. The decision reverses two district-court habeas grants and creates the cleanest possible circuit split on the central detention question of the 2025 enforcement era.
Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz: A Nationwide Class Restores Bond Eligibility for EWI Detainees
Judge Sunshine Sykes certified a nationwide class and entered final judgment rejecting the Trump administration's recategorization of long-resident EWI noncitizens as “applicants for admission” subject to mandatory § 1225(b)(2) detention. The ruling restored bond eligibility — until the Fifth Circuit said otherwise.
Castañón Nava v. DHS: A Seventh Circuit Motions Panel Rejects the Government’s Detention Theory
On a motion to stay an interim release order entered after “Operation Midway Blitz” in Chicagoland, a Seventh Circuit motions panel found DHS unlikely to succeed on the merits of its expanded mandatory-detention theory. The first federal appellate ruling rejecting the post-July 2025 framework, even in motions posture.
Black v. Almodovar: The Second Circuit Reaffirms Its Prolonged-Detention Framework
After substitution of respondents and a renewed government effort to walk back <em>Black v. Decker</em>, the Second Circuit reaffirmed the framework: prolonged § 1226(c) detention requires a bond hearing, and the government bears the burden of justifying continued custody by clear and convincing evidence.
Banyee v. Garland: The Eighth Circuit Says “No Time Limit”
A two-to-one Eighth Circuit panel reversed a habeas grant and held that the Due Process Clause “imposes no time limit on detention pending deportation” under § 1226(c). The decision sharpened the prolonged-detention circuit split and is now the principal adverse authority cited by the government nationwide.
Black v. Decker: The Second Circuit Sets a Clear-and-Convincing Floor for Prolonged § 1226(c) Detention
Two longtime lawful permanent residents had spent more than a year in mandatory criminal-alien detention without a bond hearing. The Second Circuit held that, after some indefinite point of unreasonableness, the Due Process Clause required one — and required the government to bear its burden by clear and convincing evidence.
Padilla v. ICE: A Credible-Fear Class Settlement and an Open Bond-Hearing Question
A long-running class action over delays in credible-fear interviews and bond-hearing procedures for asylum seekers detained under § 1225(b) settled in early 2024 on the credible-fear claims; the bond-hearing claims continued on interlocutory appeal and were argued in the Ninth Circuit in May 2025.