Fourth Circuit Rules Against ICE’s Broad Detention Policy for Longtime Residents

The Fourth Circuit Court has delivered a significant ruling that impacts how Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) can detain individuals within the United States. In a 2-1 decision, the court rejected a policy that allowed ICE to detain longtime residents without bond hearings, asserting that these individuals cannot be treated as if they are arriving at the border. This decision, concerning the case of Lopez Garcia v. Guadian, challenges an ICE guidance issued on July 8, 2025, which expanded mandatory detention for certain individuals. The ruling creates a notable division among appellate courts and may lead to a Supreme Court review.

Background of the ICE Detention Policy

The core of the dispute lies in an interim guidance from July 8, 2025, titled “Interim Guidance Regarding Detention Authority for Applicants for Admission.” This guidance reclassified individuals who had entered the U.S. without inspection as “applicants for admission.” This classification was applied even if these individuals had been living in the country for many years. Under the administration’s interpretation of this guidance, these residents could be held in mandatory detention without a bond hearing while their removal cases were processed.

Previously, detention without bond was generally reserved for individuals apprehended at or near the border. Those detained within the interior of the country typically had access to review under INA § 236(a). The new guidance, however, allowed ICE to use INA § 235(b) to impose mandatory custody on a broader group, including those who had lived in the U.S. for an extended period. The Fourth Circuit panel found this interpretation to be incorrect, holding that the detention law in question applies to those arriving at the border, not to immigrants who entered years earlier and were later arrested inside the country.

The Fourth Circuit’s Ruling and Reasoning

The Fourth Circuit’s majority opinion, written by Judge Nicole Berner and joined by Judge Barbara Milano Keenan, affirmed lower court orders that granted bond hearings to Oscar Enrique Lopez Garcia and Juan Jose Rivera. Lopez Garcia had entered the U.S. as a child in 1996, and Rivera had arrived in 2005. Both men had resided in the United States for decades before their cases reached the appeals court. The court’s decision means these individuals are entitled to a review of their continued custody.

Judge Berner’s opinion emphasized that the ICE policy could affect the constitutional due process rights of millions of noncitizens. She stated that the policy would “implicate the constitutional due process rights of millions of noncitizens in our country, many of whom have lived, worked, and become integral parts of their communities, for years.” The majority also drew parallels to historical instances of mass detention without due process, describing such practices as harkening back to “some of the darkest moments in our country’s history.” This historical context was used to underscore the constitutional concerns raised by automatic detention without individualized review.

Dissenting Opinion and Appellate Split

Judge Allison Rushing dissented from the majority opinion, reflecting a disagreement over the government’s interpretation of its detention authority. The ruling highlights a significant division among federal appellate courts on this issue. The Fourth Circuit’s decision aligns with eight other circuits that have rejected the administration’s interpretation of the detention provisions. However, the Fifth and Eighth Circuits have accepted the administration’s view, leading to an overall 9-2 split against the government’s position.

This appellate division creates a conflict that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has asked the Supreme Court to review. The core disagreement centers on whether INA § 235(b), which the administration uses to justify mandatory detention, applies to individuals who entered the country years ago and were later apprehended in the interior. The Fourth Circuit concluded that this provision does not govern such circumstances. The government has stated it is confident in its legal position and awaits potential Supreme Court review.

Impact on Longtime Residents

The Fourth Circuit’s decision offers a measure of protection for longtime residents who have established deep ties to their communities but face detention without bond hearings. The ruling rejects the notion that individuals who have lived and worked in the U.S. for years can be automatically classified as new arrivals for detention purposes. This distinction is crucial for ensuring that due process rights are upheld, particularly for those who have become integral parts of American society. The majority opinion recognized that the history of an individual’s presence and integration into the community is relevant when considering the constitutional implications of prolonged detention without individualized review.

Frequently Asked Questions