Seventh Circuit Rejects DHS Reading That Would Deny Immigration Detention Bond Hearings
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled Thursday that noncitizens arrested in the interior of the United States are detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 and remain eligible for an immigration detention bond hearing, rejecting the Department of Homeland Security’s position that § 1225(b)(2)(A) requires their mandatory detention without a hearing. The Ninth Circuit issued a decision the same day reaching the same conclusion.
The Seventh Circuit’s opinion in Cirrus Rojas v. Olson, No. 25-3127 arose from the habeas petition of Jaciel Cirrus Rojas, who has lived in the United States since 2018. DHS initially arrested him under § 1226, and an immigration judge, applying the same provision, found him neither a danger nor a flight risk and ordered him released on bond. The agency then refused to release him, invoking § 1225(b)(2)(A), the provision historically used to detain noncitizens apprehended at the border.
That reversal reflects a change in agency interpretation. Judge Kolar’s opinion for the panel explains that DHS now argues everyone has misread the interlocking provisions for decades, and that § 1225, not § 1226, controls detention of noncitizens who entered without inspection. The theory rests on 1996 amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act that “deemed” all noncitizens not properly admitted to be “applicants for admission” for purposes of removal proceedings. Before last year, the panel wrote, no administration had suggested that legal fiction extended to the statute’s detention provisions.
Why Interior Arrests Keep Their Bond Hearings
The Seventh Circuit rejected the government’s reading and held that § 1226 governs the detention of noncitizens arrested in the interior, preserving their access to bond hearings before an immigration judge. The panel framed the question as narrow but consequential, writing that it “determines whether millions of aliens living in the United States are subject to mandatory detention, or are eligible for bond hearings before an immigration judge.”
The decision was 2 to 1. Judge Kolar was joined by Judge Jackson-Akiwumi, and Judge Sykes dissented. The case was argued June 15, 2026.
The opinion catalogs the circuits that have addressed the question and notes that a consensus is emerging against the government’s position. The Seventh Circuit joined the Second, Sixth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits in rejecting DHS’s interpretation. The Fifth and Eighth Circuits have adopted it, each over a dissent.
The Ninth Circuit’s Companion Ruling
The same day, a Ninth Circuit panel reached the same result in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, No. 25-6842, affirming a district court’s grant of summary judgment to a class of detained noncitizens in western Washington. Judge Bress wrote for the panel, with Judge Bea dissenting.
The Ninth Circuit panel explained that, historically, noncitizens present in the interior without admission were treated as subject to release on bond during removal proceedings, and that understanding persisted after the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. The panel wrote that § 1225(b)(2)(A) was understood to apply only to noncitizens seeking to enter at the border, and that the government treated interior detentions as governed by § 1226(a), which allows release on bond. The panel’s summary states that DHS issued the new guidance in July 2025 and that “thousands of aliens” then filed habeas petitions seeking bond hearings.
The Circuit Split and What Is Pending at the Supreme Court
The Seventh Circuit opinion identifies four petitions for certiorari already pending on the question. According to the footnote cataloging the split, the Second Circuit’s decision in Barbosa Da Cunha v. Freden generated a petition filed July 24, 2026 (No. 26-104); the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft generated a petition filed June 22, 2026 (No. 25-1415); and the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, which adopted the government’s interpretation, generated a petition filed July 14, 2026 (No. 26-43).
Wisconsin Watch, in coverage of the Seventh Circuit ruling, reported that the decision could allow hundreds of detainees in Wisconsin, Indiana, and Illinois to seek bond hearings after prolonged mandatory detention. Courthouse News, in its report on the Ninth Circuit decision, described the Trump administration’s July 2025 guidance as extending to interior detainees the no-bail rule long applied to those apprehended at the border.
Cirrus Rojas remained detained at Dodge County Jail in Wisconsin during the appeal. The Seventh Circuit’s decision resolves the question for district courts in that circuit, which the panel noted had been fielding a flood of similar habeas petitions without binding authority.
