In a sweeping decision that could fundamentally alter how immigration law is enforced far from the nation’s borders, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that the government has the authority to detain certain undocumented immigrants indefinitely without bond—even if they have lived in the U.S. for decades.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit handed a major victory to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in the case of Joaquin Herrera Avila. Avila, a Mexican citizen who first entered the U.S. illegally in 2006, was arrested during a 2025 traffic stop in Minneapolis.
While a lower court previously ordered his release on a $7,500 bond, the appellate panel’s 2-1 reversal means the government can now mandatorily detain immigrants like Avila while they await removal proceedings.
The “Seeking Admission” Loophole Closes
The legal battle centered on a granular but high-stakes interpretation of federal law. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1225, “applicants for admission” who are “seeking admission” must be detained if they aren’t “clearly and beyond a doubt” entitled to be in the country.
For years, many legal scholars and previous administrations acted as if this mandatory detention only applied to people physically standing at a border or airport. Avila’s lawyers argued that because he had lived in Minnesota for years and wasn’t actively trying to cross a border, he wasn’t “seeking admission” and was therefore entitled to a bond hearing.
READ: California Jury Blasts Tech Giants With $3M Verdict In Landmark Social Media Addiction Case
The court’s majority, led by Circuit Judge Shepherd, disagreed. The court ruled that anyone present in the U.S. without being legally admitted is, by definition, an “applicant for admission.”
“Just as an applicant to a college seeks admission, an applicant for admission to the United States is ‘seeking admission’ to the same, regardless whether the person actively engages in further affirmative acts to gain admission,” the court wrote, quoting a similar recent ruling from the Fifth Circuit.
A “Novel” Interpretation?
The decision was not unanimous. In a pointed dissent, Circuit Judge Erickson argued that the court was upending nearly 30 years of established practice. He noted that for three decades, all three branches of government understood that people caught in the “interior” of the country were eligible for bond unless they had committed specific serious crimes.
“The court now holds that Avila—and millions of others—are subject to mandatory detention,” Erickson wrote. He warned that the ruling ignores the ordinary meaning of the word “seeking,” which implies a present action, like standing at a port of entry.
What Happens Next?
This ruling aligns the Eighth Circuit (which covers Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, and the Dakotas) with the conservative Fifth Circuit, but sets up a direct conflict with the Seventh Circuit. Such “circuit splits” often signal that a case is headed for the U.S. Supreme Court.
For now, the ruling gives federal agents a powerful tool. Under this interpretation, the government is not required to grant bond hearings to unadmitted immigrants caught in the interior, potentially leading to a significant increase in the number of people held in immigration detention centers.
The case now returns to the district court for further proceedings, though Avila’s legal team is expected to appeal.
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox
