Fourth Circuit Rejects Broad Mandatory Immigration Detention Policy and Upholds Access to Bond Hearings

Fourth Circuit Decision

In Lopez Garcia v. Guadian, the Fourth Circuit considered whether the federal government could require mandatory detention for noncitizens who entered the United States without inspection but were later arrested while living inside the country. The court affirmed the district court’s decision that the two petitioners were entitled to bond hearings.

The petitioners, Oscar Enrique Lopez Garcia and Juan Jose Rivera, had lived in the United States for decades. Lopez Garcia entered from Guatemala as a child in 1996 and had lived and worked in Washington, D.C. for more than 30 years. Rivera entered from El Salvador in 2005 and had lived and worked in the United States for approximately 20 years. Both were detained by ICE in October 2025.

The Fourth Circuit concluded that the detention framework applicable to people arrested inside the United States allowed these petitioners to receive individualized bond hearings. The court therefore affirmed the grants of habeas corpus relief.

Why Bond Hearings Matter

A bond hearing gives an immigration judge an opportunity to decide whether a detained noncitizen should remain in custody while the removal case proceeds. Depending on the circumstances, an immigration judge may order release on bond or impose conditions on release.

The Fourth Circuit explained that the distinction between the two detention provisions at issue is critical. Noncitizens detained under one provision may be eligible for an individualized bond hearing, while those subject to mandatory detention under another provision generally are not.

The decision also makes clear that a bond hearing does not guarantee release. At a hearing, the government and the noncitizen may present evidence concerning danger to the community, flight risk, and other relevant considerations.

The Government’s Changed Detention Policy

For many years, the government generally treated noncitizens who had entered without inspection and were later apprehended inside the United States under the detention provisions that allowed them to seek bond. In July 2025, however, the Department of Justice adopted a new interpretation of the existing immigration laws.

Under that interpretation, the government began treating noncitizens who entered without inspection as subject to a mandatory detention provision traditionally associated with applicants for admission. The change meant that people who had lived in the United States for many years could be detained without an immigration judge bond hearing.

The Fourth Circuit rejected that interpretation as applied to petitioners like Lopez Garcia and Rivera. The court emphasized the difference between a person arriving at the border and a person who has already entered the United States and is later arrested within the country.

A Growing Circuit Split

The Fourth Circuit’s ruling is significant beyond the two individuals involved because federal appellate courts are divided over the government’s interpretation of the detention laws. The Fourth Circuit stated that the issue had produced a growing circuit split and that it was joining the overwhelming majority of circuits that had considered the question.

According to the Fourth Circuit’s opinion, the First, Second, Third, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits had rejected the government’s position, while the Fifth and Eighth Circuits had reached contrary conclusions.

This disagreement is important because the law governing detention can depend on the federal circuit where the case is litigated. The conflict also increases the possibility of further review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

What This Means for Detained People

For families dealing with an ICE detention, the first question should not simply be whether the person entered the United States without inspection. A careful review should determine why the person was detained, what statutory authority the government is relying on, whether the person has a criminal history, and what federal circuit governs the case.

• Detention authority: Determine which legal provision the government is using to justify continued detention.
• Bond eligibility: Determine whether the person may request an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge.
• Federal court options: When detention is allegedly unlawful, federal habeas corpus litigation may provide an avenue for challenging the detention.
• Jurisdiction: The controlling law can differ depending on the federal circuit in which the detention challenge is brought.

The Fourth Circuit’s decision is an important development, but it does not mean that every detained noncitizen is automatically entitled to release or to a bond hearing. Each case requires an individualized analysis of the person’s immigration history and the legal basis for detention.