Filed Date: Oct. 17, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This is one of several lawsuits in which a federal court of appeals has addressed whether the mandatory detention (without bond) provision in 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) applies to noncitizens present in the United States.
In what ultimately became a consolidated appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, two noncitizens who were detained without the possibility of a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) filed petitions for writs of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. [Case Nos. 1:25-cv-24806 and 1:25-cv-24820]. The petitioners challenged their detention under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), as amended by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”), asserting their entitlement to a bond hearing. The district court agreed with petitioners, holding, in decisions issued on October 27, 2025, that the discretionary detention provisions in § 1226 governed their detention, rendering each of them eligible for bond. 2025 WL 4710008, 2025 WL 4710007. Petitioners subsequently received bond hearings and were released from custody. The government appealed.
On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court. 2026 WL 1243395. It concluded that § 1225(b)(2)(A) limits no-bond detention to applicants for admission who are “seeking admission," and not to noncitizens who are "simply present" in the United States, as to whom § 1226 applies. Citing the text, structure, and history of the INA, the court reasoned that Congress had, in the statutory scheme at issue, "preserved the longstanding border-interior distinction for purposes of detention." Here, neither petitioner was seeking lawful entry into the United States after inspection by an immigration officer when he was arrested, nor was either Petitioner taking any cognizable step to obtain lawful entry. The court therefore affirmed the district court's orders granting the petitioners habeas corpus relief.
Summary Authors
Clearinghouse (5/13/2026)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71712512/parties/hernandez-alvarez-v-morris/
Attorney, Noticing 2241/Bivens (Florida)
Fidler, Stephanie I. (Florida)
Florida, U.S. Attorney (Florida)
Garcia, Kenia (Florida)
Godshall, Amy (Florida)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71712512/hernandez-alvarez-v-morris/
Last updated May 13, 2026, 9:56 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: Oct. 17, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Noncitizens detained without bond pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A).
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
Federal Detention Center, Miami
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Department of Justice
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Habeas Corpus, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241-2253; 2254; 2255
Other Dockets:
Southern District of Florida 1:25-cv-24806
Southern District of Florida 1:25-cv-24820
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 25-14065
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 25-14075
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Immigration/Border:
Case Summary of Hernandez Alvarez v. Morris, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/48178/ (last updated 5/13/2026).