Eighth Circuit Backs Mandatory Detention Policy for Noncitizens

Federal law doesn’t require bond hearings for noncitizens arrested by immigration officials in the interior of the country, an Eighth Circuit panel found in a split decision Wednesday, siding with the Trump administration in a hotly debated area of immigration law.

The decision aligns with the Fifth Circuit, which ruled last month that noncitizens who have lived in the US for years can be detained without a chance to argue for their release in immigration court. The Seventh Circuit was highly skeptical of the administration’s stance in a preliminary decision last year and has since heard further arguments.

Under the law, Eighth Circuit Judge Bobby Shepherd wrote, even foreign nationals who have long lived and worked in the country count as “seeking admission"—even if they aren’t actively taking steps to gain lawful status—and thus aren’t entitled to bond hearings.

Shepherd, a George W. Bush appointee, was joined by Trump appointee Judge Leonard Steven Grasz.

In a dissent, Trump appointee Judge Ralph Erickson said the majority’s decision flies in the face of nearly 30 years of practice.

“Five presidential administrations, including the first Trump administration, and most immigration judges” interpreted the mandatory detention statute to apply only to those arriving at the border, he wrote.

“This conduct is something courts ought to consider,” he said, noting that Congress never tried to amend the law to correct that interpretation.

The controversy stems from the Trump administration’s new stance on longstanding immigration law. For years, authorities recognized that noncitizens apprehended in the interior of the country had the right to argue for their release in immigration court.

But last summer, the Trump administration adopted the legal stance that those migrants were instead governed by the same part of the law that applied to people coming in at the border and thus weren’t entitled to a bond hearing.

It’s a powerful tool in the administration’s mass-deportation campaign, advocates say, since detained migrants are much less likely to successfully fight their cases.

Federal district courts across the country have overwhelmingly ruled against the Trump administration in cases challenging the Department of Homeland Security’s policy. The matter is now under consideration at multiple appellate circuits and will almost certainly make its way to the US Supreme Court.

The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit’s decision overturned a Minnesota federal district court order granting a habeas corpus petition and ordering a bond hearing for Joaquin Herrera Avila, whom the government says entered illegally in 2006. Avila was arrested in Minnesota on Aug. 29 and released on bond in October after a court-ordered hearing before an immigration judge

Wednesday’s decision could affect how district judges in Eighth Circuit states rule on habeas petitions that challenge the mandatory detention policy. But even in Fifth Circuit states, some judges have continued to grant those petitions, citing due-process grounds.

The American Civil Liberties Union’s Immigrants’ Rights Project and Wilson Law Group represent Avila.

The case is Avila v. Bondi, 8th Cir., No. 25-03248, opinion 3/25/26.