Ninth Circuit: The Government Cannot Detain Noncitizens in the Interior Without a Bond Hearing

On July 30, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision that goes against one of the Trump administration’s most important detention policies regarding noncitizen arrests. Moreover, the ruling deepens a growing disagreement among federal appeals courts on this issue.

The case is called Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock. The legal question is simple to state but has huge real-world effects. If ICE arrests someone who entered the country without permission years ago, and that person is now living inside the U.S., do they get a bond hearing? Or can the government detain them with no chance of release while their case moves forward?

The policy change that started it all

For about 30 years after Congress rewrote immigration law in 1996, the government treated immigrants who entered without permission – and who were arrested inside the country – under one law: 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). This law allows detention. However, it also lets an immigration judge release someone on bond, as long as that person is not a flight risk or a danger to others.

A different law, § 1225(b)(2)(A), requires detention with no bond at all. For decades, everyone understood this second law to apply only to people stopped at the border while trying to enter the country.

That understanding stayed the same under both Republican and Democratic administrations – until July 2025. That’s when ICE issued new guidance changing the rule. Under the new guidance, only immigrants who had been formally let into the country, and who later became removable, would still qualify for bond. Everyone who had entered without permission – no matter how long ago, or how long they had lived in the U.S. – would now be treated as someone “seeking admission.” That meant mandatory detention with no bond, under § 1225(b)(2)(A). Two months later, the Board of Immigration Appeals agreed with this new reading in a case called Matter of Yajure Hurtado.

The effect was immediate. Immigration judges, including ones in Tacoma, Washington, began denying bond to a whole category of people who – just weeks earlier – could have been released while their case was pending.

The plaintiff and the group he represents

The main plaintiff, Ramon Rodriguez Vazquez, entered the U.S. without permission in 2009. In 2025, he was arrested and placed in removal proceedings. A judge in Tacoma denied him bond under the new rule. He and other people held at the Northwest ICE Processing Center sued. A federal district judge approved the case as a class action and ruled in their favor. Rodriguez Vazquez later chose to leave the U.S. voluntarily rather than keep fighting his own case. However, the class action continued without him.

By the time the Ninth Circuit heard this appeal, similar cases were happening in courts across the country. According to the opinion, more than 90% of district court judges who looked at this question ruled in favor of the detained immigrants, not the government. Thousands of people had filed petitions asking to be released.

What the court decided

Two of the three judges on the panel agreed – a 2-1 decision. Judge Daniel Bress wrote the majority opinion. He ruled that immigrants arrested inside the country, without prior admission, are still covered by § 1226(a) – meaning they get a bond hearing. They are not covered by the no-bond rule in § 1225(b)(2)(A). Judge M. Margaret McKeown agreed with him. Judge Carlos Bea disagreed.

The majority based its decision mostly on the wording, structure, and history of the law, rather than on policy preferences. They pointed out that § 1225(b)(2)(A) applies to someone “seeking admission.” In their view, this language describes a person at the border, not someone who has already been living in the country, sometimes for many years. The judges also made a simple, common-sense point. If Congress had really meant to require no-bond detention for potentially millions of people already inside the country, it seems unlikely that this change would have gone unnoticed for the next 30 years. In the court’s own words, the government’s new position would mean Congress “made a major change to the immigration laws” in 1996. This change then “went unnoticed and unheeded” for three decades. On top of that, the majority also found that the government’s reading would make other parts of the detention law – including one Congress passed just last year — largely pointless.

Judge Bea’s dissent read the same words differently. He noted that Congress defined anyone present without admission as an “applicant for admission.” In ordinary English, an applicant for admission is someone who is “seeking admission.” The judge argued that this reading better matches the purpose of the 1996 law, which was to treat all unlawfully present immigrants the same way. Finally, he also felt the majority was asking for an unusually high level of clarity from Congress before it would accept the government’s reading.

A split among the courts that may reach the Supreme Court

The Ninth Circuit is now the sixth appeals court to rule on this question, and the courts are clearly divided. The Fifth and Eighth Circuits sided with the government. Meanwhile, the Second, Sixth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits sided with the detained immigrants. The Seventh Circuit issued a split ruling that favored the immigrants but without full agreement on the reasoning.

This kind of unresolved disagreement between courts is exactly the sort of issue the Supreme Court often decides to take up. The Supreme Court touched on part of this question in Jennings v. Rodriguez (2018), where it said that § 1225 applies “primarily” to people at the border. However, the Court did not decide the specific question at issue here, about people arrested well inside the country.

Why this matters beyond the courtroom

This ruling comes at a time of growing immigration enforcement inside the country, including the recent increase in ICE arrests at airports. At its core, this case is about a basic question. Do people arrested away from the border get a chance to ask for release while their case is decided, or can they be held with no option for bond at all?

Reactions have followed predictable lines. Immigrant-rights groups and the lawyers for the plaintiffs – including the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project and the ACLU – called the ruling a win that confirms decades of standard practice. Conservative commentators criticized the decision as another example of the Ninth Circuit blocking the administration’s enforcement efforts. Unless and until the Supreme Court steps in to resolve the disagreement, the rule that applies to someone arrested inside the country may simply depend on which part of the country they are arrested in.

DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR CASE?
We are here to help. Every case is different. Contact the Law Office of Lina Baroudi to schedule a consultation and get answers regarding your specific situation.

Legal Disclaimer: This article is for general informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and reading it does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Immigration laws change rapidly, and their application depends on the facts of each case. Please consult a qualified immigration attorney about your situation before making any decisions.