Case: Quiroz v. Noem

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. 

This case challenged the Trump administration's policy of detaining noncitizens arrested in the interior of the United States without bond hearings under a new interpretation of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A)—a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (USCBP) immigration statute that mandates the detention of noncitizens who are determined to be “not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted” into the United States. 

On November 2, 2025, during a traffic stop in Oklahoma, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers arrested a Mexican national who had resided in the U.S. for nearly two decades. ICE then initiated removal proceedings that same day, charging him as inadmissible under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 212(a)(6)(A)(i). This charge stemmed from his presence in the U.S. without admission or parole. As a result, he was detained at Cimarron Correctional Facility in Cushing, Oklahoma. ICE classified the petitioner under § 1225(b)(2)(A), which the government interpreted as mandating his detention without any opportunity for a bond hearing. This interpretation was novel. In July 2025, USCBP issued a memorandum directing that individuals entering the U.S. without inspection be subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2). Subsequently, in September 2025, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) adopted the same position in Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216 (BIA 2025). These decisions overturned nearly three decades of agency practice. Under this practice, long-term interior residents apprehended by ICE had been detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and had been provided with bond hearings. Prior to this new interpretation, § 1225(b) applied exclusively to noncitizens seeking admission at the border, while § 1226(a) applied to long-term residents apprehended and detained within the interior.

On November 14, 2025, the petitioner filed this individual action as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, suing the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the U.S. Attorney General, the ICE Dallas Field Office Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations, and the Warden of Cimarron Correctional Facility. Represented by a private immigration attorney, the petitioner alleged that his detention violated the INA because § 1225(b)(2)(A) applies only to noncitizens seeking admission at the border, not to long-term residents apprehended in the interior, who should instead be detained under § 1226(a). He further alleged that his detention without an individualized bond hearing violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus ordering either his release or a bond hearing under § 1226(a) within seven days. The case was assigned to District Judge Patrick R. Wyrick and referred to Magistrate Judge Amanda Leigh Maxfield.

On November 17, 2025, Magistrate Judge Maxfield ordered the government to respond. The government filed its response on December 1, 2025, arguing that § 1252's jurisdiction-stripping provisions barred the court from considering the petition and that the petitioner was properly detained as an "applicant for admission" under § 1225(b)(2)(A). The petitioner filed his reply on December 8, 2025.

On December 11, 2025, Magistrate Judge Maxfield issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the petition be granted in part. Magistrate Judge Maxfield found that the court had jurisdiction, consistent with the prevailing analysis of numerous other district courts nationwide. On the merits, she concluded that § 1225(b)(2)(A) did not apply to noncitizens like the petitioner who had entered the country without inspection and resided in the U.S. for years, because § 1225 governs inspection and admission at the border while § 1226(a) serves as the "default rule" for noncitizens already present in the country. See Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 288, 303 (2018). Magistrate Judge Maxfield recommended that the court order the government to provide a bond hearing within seven days or release the petitioner.

The government filed objections on December 18, 2025. On January 13, 2026, Judge Wyrick declined to adopt the Report and Recommendation and denied the habeas petition. Judge Wyrick found that the petitioner was properly detained under § 1225(b)(2), relying on his reasoning in Sosa v. Holt, 2026 WL 36344 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 6, 2026). He also rejected the petitioner's due process claim as premature under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), because the petitioner had been detained for only approximately two months, well short of the six-month period the Supreme Court held was presumptively reasonable. Judgment was entered the same day.

On January 28, 2026, the petitioner appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (No. 26-6019). In mid-March 2026, attorneys from the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, the ACLU of Oklahoma Foundation, and the ACLU of Colorado Foundation entered appearances and joined Stump as counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner filed his opening brief and appendix on March 24, 2026. Between March 27 and March 30, 2026, three sets of amici filed briefs in support of the petitioner: Immigration Law Scholars; the Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network and the American Immigration Lawyers Association; and twenty-one states and the District of Columbia, led by the State of New York.

On March 31, 2026, the petitioner moved to consolidate his two appeals (No. 26-4015 and No. No. 26-6019). On April 2, 2026, the court granted the motion in part, ordering both appeals to be submitted to the same panel but briefed separately. The court expedited briefing and set oral argument for May 12, 2026. The government filed its response brief on April 7, 2026, and the petitioner filed his reply on April 10, 2026. Both sides filed supplemental authorities in the weeks before and after oral argument. On May 12, 2026, the Tenth Circuit heard oral argument before Circuit Judges Bacharach, Ebel, and Federico. 

On June 30, 2026, the Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded in a published opinion authored by Circuit Judge Federico. The court held that § 1225(b)(2)(A) applies only to noncitizens who are "seeking admission" at or near the border, not to those apprehended in the interior after years of residence. Through a detailed statutory analysis, the court concluded that § 1225 governs the inspection process at the border, while § 1226(a) is the default provision for noncitizens already present in the country. The court also invoked constitutional avoidance, reasoning that the government's interpretation would raise serious due process concerns by subjecting long-term residents to mandatory, indefinite detention without individualized review. The Tenth Circuit joined the Second, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits in rejecting the government's position, and parted ways with the Fifth and Eighth Circuits, which had ruled in the government's favor. The court ordered the district court on remand to grant the habeas petition and to order the government to provide the petitioner with a bond hearing within seven days or release him. Judgment was entered the same day, and the Tenth Circuit's opinion and judgment were transmitted to the district court on July 1, 2026.

On July 30, 2026, the district court granted the petitioner’s writ for habeas corpus in part, ordering that the defendants either provide the petitioner with a bond hearing within seven days of the order or release the petitioner if he has not received a bond hearing within that period.