Background
Oscar Enrique Lopez Garcia and Juan Jose Rivera entered the United States without inspection or authorization and lived here for decades. ICE detained both men in October 2025 and initiated removal proceedings. Neither man was given a bond hearing because the government, applying a construction adopted in July 2025, treated them as subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A).
Each man sought habeas relief, arguing that his detention was governed instead by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which permits release on bond, and that detention without a bond hearing violated due process. The district court granted both petitions and ordered bond hearings. Immigration judges later found that neither man posed a danger or flight risk and released them on bond. The government appealed the grants of habeas relief, and the appeals were consolidated.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The majority held that § 1226, rather than § 1225(b)(2)(A), governs the detention of noncitizens such as Lopez Garcia and Rivera who entered without inspection but had been living inside the United States for years when arrested. They therefore were entitled to bond hearings and were eligible for release while their removal proceedings remained pending.
The court concluded that this interpretation best fit the INA’s text, structure, context, purpose, and longstanding implementation. Although the government’s reading found some textual support, the majority determined that it would render portions of the statutory scheme ineffective, conflict with later amendments including the Laken Riley Act, and raise serious constitutional concerns. The court clarified, however, that at a § 1226(a) bond hearing the detained noncitizen—not the government—bears the burden of showing that he is neither dangerous nor a flight risk.
Key Takeaways
- Longtime residents arrested inside the United States after entering without inspection are detained under § 1226, not automatically under § 1225(b)(2)(A).
- Those detainees may receive bond hearings and seek release while removal proceedings are pending.
- The noncitizen bears the burden at the bond hearing of establishing that he is not a danger to the community or a flight risk.
Why It Matters
The decision rejects the government’s July 2025 interpretation that all noncitizens who entered without inspection are subject to mandatory detention without bond throughout removal proceedings. Within the Fourth Circuit, people situated like Lopez Garcia and Rivera remain eligible for individualized bond determinations under § 1226(a).
The ruling also places the Fourth Circuit with the circuits that distinguish longtime noncitizens arrested in the interior from applicants detained under § 1225, while acknowledging that other circuits have adopted the government’s broader mandatory-detention interpretation. Judge Rushing dissented and would have reversed the district court’s judgments.