Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has delivered another major legal blow to the Trump administration's immigration enforcement strategy, ruling that immigrants who entered the United States unlawfully years ago cannot automatically be held without bond under a law the government has increasingly relied upon since 2025. In a 2-1 decision issued Friday, the Philadelphia-based appeals court upheld orders requiring the release of two longtime U.S. residents who had been detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) without bond hearings. The court concluded that their detention violated both the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and constitutional due process protections.
The ruling adds to a growing split among federal appellate courts over whether the administration can use a border detention statute to hold immigrants arrested years after entering the country, a conflict that increasingly appears destined for Supreme Court review. Newsweek reached out to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) for comment Friday morning and is awaiting responses. The case involved Gabriel Antonio Buele Morocho, an Ecuadorian national who entered the U.S. in 2001, and Wanderson Lopes De Andrade, a Brazilian national who entered in 2014.
Both were arrested by ICE years later and placed into mandatory detention under Section 1225(b)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Traditionally, immigrants found living in the U.S. after entering without inspection were generally detained under a separate provision, Section 1226(a), which allows immigration judges to consider release on bond if the individual is not considered a danger to the community or a flight risk. Beginning in 2025, however, the government expanded its use of mandatory detention, arguing that immigrants who had never been formally admitted to the United States could be held without bond while their removal proceedings continued.
The Third Circuit rejected that interpretation. "Because their detentions without hearings violated the Immigration and Nationality Act ('INA') and due process, we will affirm," Judge Patty Shwartz wrote for the majority. At the heart of the dispute is a section of immigration law that requires detention of certain noncitizens who are "seeking admission" to the U.S. and are found not clearly entitled to enter.
The administration argued that people who entered illegally and never received formal admission remain "applicants for admission" and can therefore be detained under the mandatory detention provision regardless of how long they have lived in the country. The Third Circuit disagreed, holding that the phrase "seeking admission" refers to people actively trying to gain entry into the country, not individuals who crossed the border years earlier and were later arrested in the U.S. interior. The court said Congress's use of the word "seeking" implies a present and ongoing effort to gain admission.
The judges concluded that immigrants already living in the United States are not in a continuous state of attempting to enter the country. As a result, the court held that such individuals generally must be processed under Section 1226(a), making them eligible to request bond hearings. The Third Circuit also ruled that the government's detention policy violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
