Fourth Circuit rejects Trump’s interpretation of immigrant detention policy

The Fourth Circuit joined eight sister circuits in holding the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act generally does not allow for the detention of noncitizens living in the country without a bond hearing.RICHMOND, Va. (CN) — A Fourth Circuit majority became the latest court Thursday to hold Donald Trump’s view of a 30-year-old immigration policy is improper.The petitioners, a Salvadoran and a Guatemalan who have lived in the United States for over two decades, successfully argued the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act entitles noncitizens like them who are already living in the country to bond hearings before immigration judges. The ruling contradicts a July 2025 Justice Department announcement that noncitizens are subject to mandatory detention.U.S. Circuit Judge Nicole Berner, writing for the majority, said the government’s new interpretation, which lumps those seeking admission to the country with those already in the country, is in contrast to how the government has enforced the act over the last 30 years.“Five presidential administrations, including the first Trump Administration, acted in accordance with this interpretation of the statute,” the Joe Biden appointee said. “Accepting the government’s construction would mean that Congress mandated the detention of millions of people and upended the longstanding distinction, grounded in the due process clause of the Constitution, between those arriving at our borders and those already present in our country.”The case concerned the language of two sections of the act dictating detention. Section 1225(b)(2)(A) states that “an alien who is an applicant for admission, if the examining immigration officer determines that an alien seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted, the alien shall be detained.” Section 1226 meanwhile states that the government may release noncitizens on bond pending removal proceedings. Berner held that a lower court properly determined Section 1226 governed the petitioners’ detention.“The courts have resoundingly rejected the administration’s cruel policy and its blatant disrespect for the rule of law,” My Khanh Ngo, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said in a statement. “We are thrilled for our clients and their families.”The Fourth Circuit joined eight of its sister circuits in ruling those in the process of removal proceedings are entitled to seek release by an immigration judge. The petitioners and the majority distinguish between noncitizens arriving in the country and those already present.“The government cannot rewrite immigration law to serve this administration’s anti-immigrant agenda by detaining people en masse, and today’s ruling again makes that crystal clear,” Sophia Gregg, senior immigrants’ rights attorney with the ACLU of Virginia, said in a statement.Bond hearings require the government to prove a noncitizen poses a danger to the community or is a flight risk if it seeks to continue detention before removal proceedings.The Fifth and Eighth Circuits, however, ruled Section 1225 applies to noncitizens who have not been legally admitted into the United States. The government argued, and U.S. Circuit Judge Allison Rushing agreed, that those entering the country and those in the country are the same for the act’s purposes.“‘Applicant for admission’ and ‘alien seeking admission’ both refer to an alien who requests lawful entry into the United States. In other words, an applicant for admission is seeking admission,” the Trump appointee wrote in her dissent. “It’s that simple.”Berner offered an analogy to spell out what the majority views as different statuses requiring different results under the act.“Under this interpretation, an apt analogy would be to a moviegoer who sneaks into the theater without paying for a ticket and watches half the film. The moviegoer cannot be said to be ‘seeking’ to enter the theater when he is already inside,” Berner said. “Rather, he is requesting to remain.”Berner ruled the government’s interpretation fails to give meaning to each word of Section 1225. The ruling means noncitizens like the petitioners within the Fourth Circuit won’t need to go through the burden of seeking habeas relief in federal courts. Habeas petitions have flooded lower courts across the country since Trump announced the new interpretation.The United States has previously undertaken mass detention efforts in 1892 with the passage of the Geary Act, which required the detention and hard labor of Chinese noncitizens. The government again undertook mass detention after the bombing of Pearl Harbor when nearly 120,000 Japanese Americans were sent to internment camps. Berner noted the government’s current interpretation would dwarf those mass detentions by requiring the arrest of around 6 million people.“The government urges us to adopt a construction of an ambiguous statute that would subject millions of people living and working in the United States to mandatory detention with no recourse to the constitutional protections that have long been held to apply to them,” Berner said. “Mass detention of marginalized individuals without due process harkens back to some of the darkest moments in our country’s history.”Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Barbara Keenan, a Barack Obama appointee, joined Berner in the majority. The government did not respond to a request for comment.Attorney Ava Benach, a partner at Benach Pitney Reilly representing Lopez Garcia, said he expects the Supreme Court to weigh in on the issue.“I think the basic takeaway is that review of the government’s detention policy and practices is absolutely essential, and that the ability to hold people without being able to see a judge is something that’s so antithetical to ideas, principles of justice and fairness that it couldn’t be sustained under our Constitution,” Benach said in a phone interview.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads