Case: Buele Morocho v. Jamison
2:25-cv-05930 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Filed Date: Oct. 16, 2025
Closed Date: Aug. 24, 2026
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This case is one of several lawsuits in which a federal court of appeals has addressed whether the mandatory detention (without bond) provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act applies to noncitizens who have lived in the United States for some time.
The following background is pulled from the District Court’s November 26, 2025 memorandum opinion.
Petitioner, a citizen of Ecuador, entered the United States without inspection in 2001 and had lived there for over two decades when he was arrested and detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on September 30, 2025. The government charged the petitioner as inadmissible under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and detained him without bond under the INA's mandatory detention provision, 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A).
On October 16, 2025, petitioner, represented by private counsel, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Petitioner argued that his detention was unlawful because the INA's mandatory detention provision did not apply to noncitizens who already resided in the United States. He further argued that the government should have detained him under a different provision of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) under which he would have been entitled to a bond hearing. The case was assigned to District Judge John M. Gallagher.
Petitioner filed a motion to expedite the proceedings on November 13, 2025. The court granted it the same day and ordered the government to respond within five days.
On November 24, 2025, the court granted petitioner’s habeas petition and ordered his immediate release, crediting petitioner’s argument that he was entitled to a bond hearing under the INA. However, the court noted that the government was free to pursue petitioner's re-detention under the proper provision of the INA. The court published a memorandum opinion on November 26, 2025. 2025 WL 3296300.
On January 22, 2026, the government appealed the court’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On February 6, 2026, the government moved to stay appellate proceedings pending authorization by the Solicitor General. The court granted this motion on February 19, 2026.
On March 11, 2026, petitioner moved to consolidate the case with a similar case that was also on appeal in the Third Circuit in which an immigrant had successfully challenged his mandatory detention under the INA, Andrade v. Rose, No. 26-603. On March 13, 2026, the Third Circuit granted petitioner’s motion to consolidate the cases and scheduled expedited briefing. Multiple states, several professional and nonprofit organizations, and a group of former immigration judges filed amicus briefs in support of petitioner and his counterpart.
On May 11, 2026, a panel of Third Circuit judges heard oral arguments in the consolidated case. On August 28, 2026, the panel affirmed the district court judgments that ruled in favor of the petitioners. The panel held that under the plain meaning of §§ 1225(b)(2)(A) and 1226(a) of the INA, only the latter, which establishes a discretionary detention scheme with the opportunity for release on bond, applies to noncitizens like the petitioners, who are present in the U.S. after entering the country without inspection and admission, and who were not apprehended at or near the border at the time of entry. By contrast, the mandatory detention scheme of § 1225(b)(2)(A) is limited to persons arriving in the United States who are detained at or near the border. The panel also noted that the statutory scheme supported this interpretation. Finally, the panel held that petitioners’ detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) violated their due process rights. According to the panel, the government’s interest in preventing release of “dangerous noncitizens who might fail to appear at future hearings” did not outweigh the petitioners’ constitutionally protected interest in avoiding restraint and having an opportunity for a neutral decisionmaker to assess whether they were in fact dangerous or flight risks, because there was no evidence that the petitioners were a flight risk, the petitioners had no criminal or violent history, and they had lived peacefully in the country for more than a decade. 2026 WL 2546233.
The period for the government to request rehearing in the Third Circuit expired on October 12, 2026.
Summary Authors
Emma Farrell (9/13/2026)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71665533/parties/buele-morocho-v-jamison/
CASAZZA, CHRISTOPHER M. (Pennsylvania)
Esq., Amit Jain, (Pennsylvania)
Esq., Brianne J. (Pennsylvania)
Esq., Emma C. (Pennsylvania)
Esq., Gillian Barna, (Pennsylvania)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71665533/buele-morocho-v-jamison/
Last updated Oct. 21, 2026, 3:15 a.m.
Docket for: BUELE MOROCHO v. JAMISON
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Trump Administration 2.0: Litigation and Investigations Involving the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: Oct. 16, 2025
Closing Date: Aug. 24, 2026
Case Ongoing: No reason to think so
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Undocumented immigrant held in detention.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
Acting Field Office Director (Immigration and Customs Enforcement)
U.S. Attorney General
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Executive Office for Immigration Review
Warden of Philadelphia Detention Center
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Habeas Corpus, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241-2253; 2254; 2255
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq.
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
Eastern District of Pennsylvania 2:25-cv-05930
Eastern District of Pennsylvania 2:26-cv-00603
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 26-01150
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 26-1454
Special Case Type(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Immigration/Border:
Undocumented immigrants - rights and duties
Case Summary of Buele Morocho v. Jamison, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/48425/ (last updated 9/13/2026).