Fourth Circuit rejects Trump administration’s mandatory detention theory

A divided federal appeals court has rejected the Trump administration’s broader interpretation of immigration detention law, ruling that noncitizens in a specific statutory category must be allowed to seek an individualized bond hearing when they are arrested and detained inside the United States.

The Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued the published 2-1 decision on September 10, 2026, in Lopez Garcia v. Guadian and the related Rivera v. Guadian case. The court affirmed habeas relief for two men detained in Virginia, deepening a split among federal appeals courts that could lead to Supreme Court review.

What the Fourth Circuit decided

The majority held that noncitizens who entered the United States without inspection or authorization but were later arrested and detained inside the country generally fall under Section 1226(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. That provision allows an immigration judge to conduct an individualized bond hearing.

The administration had argued that the same category of people is covered by Section 1225(b)(2)(A), which requires mandatory detention without a bond hearing while removal proceedings are pending.

The decision applies to the statutory circumstances addressed by the consolidated cases. It does not end mandatory immigration detention generally, and it does not mean every noncitizen arrested inside the United States automatically qualifies for release or a bond hearing.

Why the two cases mattered

The two petitioners had lived in the United States for decades before they were detained in October 2025. The Fourth Circuit opinion describes their long-standing ties to the country and says the government did not contend that either man posed a danger to the community or a flight risk.

Both men received bond hearings after a district court granted relief. Immigration judges found that they did not pose a danger or flight risk, and both were released on bond in November 2025. The September 2026 appellate ruling did not itself directly release them; it affirmed the legal relief that led to those hearings.

The July 2025 policy shift

The dispute followed a July 2025 change in the administration’s interpretation of the detention statutes. Under that position, noncitizens who had entered without inspection or authorization could be placed in the mandatory-detention category even when they had been living in the United States for years before being arrested.

The Fourth Circuit majority rejected that reading after examining the statutory language and the historical distinction between people seeking admission at the border and people already living inside the country. The majority also said the administration’s interpretation raised serious constitutional-avoidance concerns because it could eliminate bond hearings for potentially millions of noncitizens living in the United States.

Those concerns were part of the court’s reasoning. They were not a separate holding that the administration had violated the Constitution.

Why geography now matters

The Associated Press reported that the Fourth Circuit became the ninth federal appeals court to reject the administration’s interpretation. The Fifth and Eighth circuits have reached the opposite conclusion, agreeing that Section 1225(b)(2)(A) requires mandatory detention for the relevant category of noncitizens.

The Fourth Circuit covers Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina. The Fifth Circuit covers Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, while the Eighth Circuit covers several Midwestern and Great Plains states. As a result, similarly situated people may face different detention rules depending on the federal circuit handling their case.

The Department of Homeland Security has said it remains confident in its legal position and has asked the Supreme Court to take up the issue, according to AP. The Supreme Court has not been confirmed to have granted review.

What detainees and families should know

A bond hearing is not automatic release. At the hearing, an immigration judge generally considers whether the person presents a danger to the community or a flight risk. The judge may order bond, impose conditions or continue detention.

The ruling also does not displace separate mandatory-detention rules that may apply because of criminal allegations, terrorism-related concerns or other provisions of federal law. Eligibility depends on the person’s entry history, detention authority, case facts and the federal circuit involved.

Families dealing with detention should seek advice from a qualified immigration attorney or accredited legal representative. The immediate effect of the ruling is greatest for people detained within the Fourth Circuit who fall within the statutory category addressed by the cases. The broader legal question remains unsettled unless the Supreme Court resolves the split or Congress changes the law.

Sources

Look for updates to this story

Discover more from Interactive News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.