A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that undocumented immigrants arrested inside the interior of the United States are not subject to mandatory detention and remain eligible to request release on bond during removal proceedings.
In a 2–1 decision, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower court ruling out of Western Washington. The decision strikes down a federal policy adopted in July 2025 that sought to detain unadmitted immigrants without the possibility of bond, regardless of how long they had lived in the country or where they were apprehended.
Writing for the majority, Circuit Judge Daniel A. Bress explained that federal immigration statutes historically separated border enforcement from interior enforcement. While mandatory detention applies to migrants encountered at the border or ports of entry, the court held that long-standing law governs interior arrests under a separate discretionary regime that permits bond hearings.
“We conclude that the text, context, and structure of the INA, considered as a whole, did not direct such a significant, yet overlooked, change in the law,” Judge Bress wrote. He noted that for nearly three decades following 1996 legislative updates, successive presidential administrations consistently treated interior detainees as eligible for bond under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
“The question here is not about policy or Executive Branch discretion, but congressional authorization,” Bress added, noting that if Congress had intended to order mass mandatory detention for millions of interior residents, it would have stated so directly rather than through complex cross-references.
The lawsuit was originally brought by Ramon Rodriguez Vazquez, an undocumented immigrant residing in the U.S. since 2009 who was detained in Tacoma, Washington, and denied a bond hearing under the 2025 policy shift. The case eventually expanded into a class action representing noncriminal immigrants held at the Northwest ICE Processing Center.
Thursday’s ruling deepens an ongoing split among federal appellate courts across the nation. The Fifth and Eighth Circuits previously ruled in favor of the federal government’s mandatory detention stance. In contrast, the Ninth Circuit now joins the Second, Sixth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits in holding that interior arrests do not trigger automatic, mandatory detention without bond.
In a dissenting opinion, Circuit Judge Carlos T. Bea argued that the statutory language deems any unadmitted immigrant an “applicant for admission,” which automatically subjects them to mandatory detention rules regardless of where they are caught.
“I accept, as I must, the premise that Congress has ‘deemed’ ‘[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted’ an ‘applicant for admission,'” Judge Bea wrote, concluding that “all those deemed to be ‘applicants for admission’ are necessarily ‘seeking admission,’ and plaintiffs may be properly detained without bond.”
The Ninth Circuit’s decision leaves intact mandatory detention requirements for immigrants who have committed qualifying criminal offenses or those subject to expedited removal procedures at the border.
READ: Texas Lab, Former CEO, And Florida Businessman Pay $36.4M To Settle Medicare Fraud Allegations
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.
