Federal Appeals Court Upholds Due Process Right to Bond Hearings, Rejecting Mandatory Detention Policy

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has ruled that the federal government cannot mandate the detention of undocumented immigrants without bond hearings if they have lived in the United States for years.

In a 2-1 decision issued Friday in Philadelphia, the court struck down a Trump administration policy that sought to hold long-term residents under a strict statute traditionally reserved for individuals apprehended directly at the border. The ruling deals a significant blow to a cornerstone of the administration's interior enforcement strategy, reaffirming that long-term residents retain fundamental rights to challenge their incarceration.[1][2]

The ruling in Buele Morocho v. Warden Philadelphia FDC marks the eighth time a federal appellate court has rejected the administration's interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The decision takes immediate effect across Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

By striking down the mandatory detention directive, the court effectively restored the authority of immigration judges to grant release on bond for individuals who can prove they do not pose a flight risk or a danger to the community. The decision provides immediate relief to thousands of detainees held in facilities across the region.[2][3]

At the center of the legal dispute is a drastic shift in federal enforcement strategy that began in mid-2025. The Department of Homeland Security began applying Section 1225(b)(2)(A) of the INA—a strict mandatory detention provision—to noncitizens who entered the country without inspection, regardless of how long they had resided in the interior. Previously, such individuals were processed under Section 1226(a) of the statute, which explicitly permits discretionary bond hearings while removal proceedings are underway. The sudden change in protocol upended decades of established legal practice across multiple presidential administrations.[3]

To justify the policy, the government argued that anyone who entered the country unlawfully remains an 'applicant for admission' indefinitely, thereby triggering mandatory detention until their deportation proceedings conclude. This sweeping reinterpretation led to the sudden incarceration of thousands of individuals across the country. The policy ensnared many long-term residents who had previously reported to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) regularly under supervision orders, stripping them of the ability to challenge their detention before a judge and separating them from their families and communities without due process.[1][2]

Writing for the majority, Circuit Judge Patty Shwartz firmly rejected the government's statutory reading. The court held that the mandatory detention provision applies only to noncitizens who are actively 'seeking admission'—meaning those engaged in a present or ongoing attempt to cross the border.

Because the petitioners had lived in the United States for years, the court concluded they were not actively seeking entry and must be processed under the statute that allows for bond. The panel emphasized that Congress's use of the word 'seeking' implies a present action, not a permanent status.[2][3]

Beyond the statutory text, the Third Circuit found that the administration's policy violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The panel emphasized that individuals who have established lives and resided in the U.S. interior possess constitutional protections against arbitrary imprisonment that differ fundamentally from those of individuals stopped at the border. Holding them indefinitely without an individualized hearing, the court ruled, breaches those fundamental constitutional rights. The decision cited long-standing Supreme Court precedent affirming that due process protections extend to all persons physically present in the United States.[2][3]

The case consolidated the habeas corpus petitions of two men: Gabriel Antonio Buele Morocho, an Ecuadorian citizen who entered the U.S. in 2001, and Wanderson Lopes De Andrade, a Brazilian citizen who entered in 2014. Both were arrested by ICE in late 2025 and early 2026 and held without the possibility of bond.

Federal district judges in Philadelphia had previously ordered their release, prompting the government's appeal. The policy shift had triggered a massive influx of litigation in the region, overwhelming the local federal docket with emergency petitions from detained immigrants.[2][3]

Since the directive took effect, more than 1,100 habeas corpus petitions have been filed in Philadelphia's federal courthouse, compared to just 11 such suits between 2020 and 2024. District judges have granted these requests at near-universal rates, a trend the Third Circuit has now formally upheld as legally sound.

While eight circuits have now struck down the mandatory detention policy as an unlawful overreach, two circuits have upheld the government's authority, creating an 8-2 circuit split that makes the issue a prime candidate for Supreme Court review in the upcoming term.[1][2]