The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on Tuesday reversed a lower court’s decision, ruling that immigration officials cannot deny bond hearings to unadmitted noncitizens who are arrested away from the nation’s borders.
The decision directly impacts Rigoberto Santillan Quiroz, who has spent more than eight months in a federal detention facility without the opportunity to request bail.
Writing for the three-judge panel, Circuit Judge Federico framed the central issue of the case around basic legal rights.
“The question before us is whether Santillan Quiroz is eligible for bond and therefore entitled to meaningfully challenge his detention at a bond hearing before an immigration judge,” the opinion states. The court answered with a definitive yes, determining that the government’s current enforcement strategy relies on an incorrect reading of federal law.
Santillan Quiroz has lived in the United States since 2006. According to court documents, he is married to a lawful permanent resident, has a U.S.-citizen stepdaughter, and has no criminal record beyond a single completed DUI conviction. On November 2, 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents detained him during an interior traffic stop.
He has remained in custody ever since, despite the fact that he is not charged with a crime, nor does the government suggest he is a flight risk or a danger to the community.
The case highlights a sharp policy shift implemented by the federal government in July 2025. For nearly three decades following the passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, federal agencies treated border arrivals and interior apprehensions under distinct statutory rules.
Under that long-standing framework, border arrivals were subject to mandatory detention, while interior detainees could typically seek bond. However, a July 2025 executive memorandum altered this practice, asserting that border-related mandatory detention rules also applied to individuals found inside the country.
The Tenth Circuit rejected this new interpretation, noting that the government’s position broke with decades of established administrative protocol. Judge Federico wrote that the historic consistency of previous administrations serves as “strong evidence that [such mandate] does not exist.”
The court emphasized that a person physically living inside the country is not actively trying to cross the border, stating that a noncitizen cannot logically be considered “seeking admission” after they have already entered the interior.
The court also pointed out that extending mandatory detention to millions of long-term interior residents presents severe constitutional problems under the Fifth Amendment. “Freedom from imprisonment—from government custody, detention, or other forms of physical restraint—lies at the heart of the liberty that [the Due Process] Clause protects,” the opinion noted, adding that civil detention requires a strong and specific justification.
This ruling deepens a growing fracture among federal courts across the country. The Tenth Circuit now joins the Second, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits in rejecting the interior mandatory detention policy, while the Fifth and Eighth Circuits have previously ruled in favor of the government’s interpretation.
As a result of Tuesday’s decision, the case returns to the federal district court. The Tenth Circuit ordered that the lower court must instruct the government to either grant Santillan Quiroz a formal bond hearing within seven days or release him from custody.
READ: Massachusetts Judge Smashes Federal Plan To Strip Student Loan Forgiveness Over Political Views
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.
