Record · the original document behind a story
Fourth Circuit opinion, September 10, 2026
Published by U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on September 10, 2026.
which courts required a bond hearing, and the count of individual cases
The cited passage, with surrounding source text
… III. Analysis For nearly three decades, all three branches of the federal government interpreted Section 1226 to apply to noncitizens—like Petitioners Lopez Garcia and Rivera—present in the United States without inspection and admission, and Section 1225 to apply to noncitizens arriving at our borders. The Petitioners are among thousands of noncitizens in the United States swept up and detained without bond as a result of the Government’s newly adopted construction of Section 1225. “To no one’s surprise and as the [G]overnment has acknowledged, this change in policy has led to a ‘tsunami’ of habeas --- page 15 --- 15 petitions” filed across the country. Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494, 509 n.3 (5th Cir. 2026) (Douglas, J., dissenting). In response to this tsunami, hundreds of federal district courts have considered the question we consider today. The overwhelming majority—over five hundred—rejected the Government’s new construction and sided with the petitioners in over twenty thousand individual cases.4 The debate has now reached every numbered United States court of appeals and has led to a circuit split. The First, Second, Third, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits concluded that Section 1226 applies to noncitizens inside our country, like the Petitioners, and that they must thus be provided a bond hearing. Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz, --- F.4th ---, 2026 WL 2352042 (1st Cir. Aug. 13, 2026); Barbosa da Cunha v. Freden, 175 F.4th 61 (2d Cir. 2026); Buele Morocho v. Warden Philadelphia FDC, --- F.4th ---, 2026 WL 2546223 (3d Cir. Aug. 28, 2026); Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft, 175 F.4th 713 (6th Cir. 2026); Cirrus Rojas v. Olson, 183 F.4th 909 (7th Cir. 2026); Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 183 F.4th 1160 (9th Cir. 2026); Santillan Quiroz v. Mullin, 180 F.4th 1226 (10th Cir. 2026); Hernandez Alvarez v. Warden, Fed. Det. Ctr. Miami, 175 F.4th 1258 (11th Cir. 2026). The Fifth and Eighth Circuits ruled, on the other hand, that Section 1225 applies to all noncitizens who have not been admitted to the United States …
Read the original · Open the copy we saved
Where we use it
- The Supreme Court agreed to decide whether people already in the country who were never admitted must be held without a bond hearing · cited for which courts required a bond hearing, and the count of cases
About this saved copy
The fingerprint identifies the saved text used for this record. A different copy has a different fingerprint.
- Text fingerprint (SHA-256)
ad07bdd572fbb4939acd39318ea37983cd2749391d5034ba08cbe674d59f32f9
Timeline entries this record anchors: The Second Circuit affirms a bond hearing or release.