Bond hearings after interior ICE arrests: circuit split

Status: In litigation — Cunha v. Freden; Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi; Herrera Avila v. Bondi; Hernandez Alvarez v. Warden (2d Cir. No. 25-3141; 5th Cir. No. 25-20496; 8th Cir. No. 25-3248; 11th Cir. No. 25-14065)

Federal appeals courts are divided over whether immigrants who entered the United States without inspection and were later arrested in the interior may be detained without a bond hearing while their removal cases proceed. Starting in 2025 the government read 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) to require their mandatory detention, reversing the prior practice of treating such people under § 1226(a), where an immigration judge can set bond. As of June 30, 2026, four circuits side with the immigrants (a bond hearing is available) — the 2nd Circuit (Cunha v. Freden, Apr. 28, 2026), the 11th Circuit (Hernandez Alvarez v. Warden, May 6, 2026), the 6th Circuit (Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft, May 11, 2026), and the 7th Circuit (Castañon-Nava, on a stay motion) — while two circuits side with the government (mandatory detention, no bond hearing): the 5th Circuit (Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, Feb. 6, 2026) and the 8th Circuit (Herrera Avila v. Bondi, Mar. 25, 2026). The split is unresolved; the 1st and 10th Circuits have not yet ruled.

Next step: Likely resolution by the U.S. Supreme Court — but as of June 30, 2026 the Court has not taken up this § 1225(b)(2)(A) interior-arrest question (a separate prolonged-detention case, Genalo v. Black, No. 25-886, is pending there on a different issue). The 1st and 10th Circuits have not yet ruled and could be next. Until the split is resolved, whether a bond hearing is available depends on the circuit where the person is detained.

Verified against the primary source as of 2026-07-25 — status can change with a single court ruling. Official source.

What’s happening

Federal appeals courts are divided over whether immigrants who entered the United States without inspection and were later arrested in the interior may be detained without a bond hearing while their removal cases proceed. Starting in 2025 the government read 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) to require their mandatory detention, reversing the prior practice of treating such people under § 1226(a), where an immigration judge can set bond. As of June 30, 2026, four circuits side with the immigrants (a bond hearing is available) — the 2nd Circuit (Cunha v. Freden, Apr. 28, 2026), the 11th Circuit (Hernandez Alvarez v. Warden, May 6, 2026), the 6th Circuit (Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft, May 11, 2026), and the 7th Circuit (Castañon-Nava, on a stay motion) — while two circuits side with the government (mandatory detention, no bond hearing): the 5th Circuit (Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, Feb. 6, 2026) and the 8th Circuit (Herrera Avila v. Bondi, Mar. 25, 2026). The split is unresolved; the 1st and 10th Circuits have not yet ruled.

Who it affects

Immigrants who entered the U.S. without inspection, have been living here, and are arrested in the interior (not at or near the border) and placed in removal proceedings — and their ability to ask an immigration judge for release on bond while their case is pending. Whether a bond hearing is available now depends on the circuit where the person is detained: it is available in the 2nd, 6th, 7th, and 11th Circuits, but not in the 5th Circuit (Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi) or the 8th Circuit (Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota). This does not change mandatory detention for people caught at or near the border, or mandatory detention under § 1226(c) for certain criminal or terrorism-related grounds.

How it got here

  1. Feb 6, 2026 5th Circuit (Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, No. 25-20496) holds that immigrants who entered without inspection and are arrested in the interior fall under § 1225(b)(2)(A) mandatory detention — no bond hearing — within Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.
  2. Mar 25, 2026 8th Circuit (Herrera Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-3248) agrees with the 5th Circuit: mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A), no bond hearing, across its seven states.
  3. Apr 28, 2026 2nd Circuit (Cunha v. Freden, No. 25-3141) rejects the government's reading and holds that § 1226(a) governs — a bond hearing is available — creating a circuit split.
  4. May 6, 2026 11th Circuit (Hernandez Alvarez v. Warden, No. 25-14065) joins the 2nd Circuit: § 1225(b)(2)(A) does not apply to these interior arrests, so a bond hearing is available in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia.
  5. May 11, 2026 6th Circuit (Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft) joins the 2nd and 11th Circuits, holding a bond hearing is available; with the 7th Circuit's earlier stay-motion ruling, four circuits now reject mandatory detention versus two that uphold it.

What to watch next

Likely resolution by the U.S. Supreme Court — but as of June 30, 2026 the Court has not taken up this § 1225(b)(2)(A) interior-arrest question (a separate prolonged-detention case, Genalo v. Black, No. 25-886, is pending there on a different issue). The 1st and 10th Circuits have not yet ruled and could be next. Until the split is resolved, whether a bond hearing is available depends on the circuit where the person is detained.

Official sources

This page is general information about ongoing litigation, not legal advice. A case’s status can change with a single ruling, and outcomes can turn on facts specific to each person. For advice on a specific situation, consult a licensed immigration attorney or a DOJ-accredited representative.