I. Statutory Framework

A profound circuit split has emerged over the scope of mandatory alien detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). The central question — whether the mandatory detention mandate applies only to aliens actively seeking lawful entry at the border, or extends to all unadmitted aliens apprehended anywhere within the United States — now stands before the Supreme Court for resolution.

‍

The detention framework established by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) operates on two tracks. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), DHS retains discretionary authority to detain or release an alien pending removal proceedings, with bond hearing eligibility before an immigration judge. By contrast, 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) mandates detention — with no bond hearing — of any alien who an examining officer determines is "not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted." The critical and undefined phrase is "seeking admission."

‍

II. 2025 Agency Action

On July 8, 2025, ICE issued interim guidance departing from twenty-nine years of consistent prior practice. The guidance interprets § 1225(b)(2)(A) to apply to all unadmitted aliens, regardless of how long they have resided in the United States, treating them identically to arriving aliens at ports of entry. Only formally admitted aliens subsequently charged as deportable under § 1227 retain bond hearing eligibility under § 1226(a).

‍

On September 5, 2025, the BIA issued a precedential decision in Matter of Yajure Hurtado upholding the guidance. Involving a Venezuelan national who had unlawfully entered in November 2022 and was apprehended in April 2025, the BIA ruled that the statute's text "clearly and explicitly" requires mandatory detention of all applicants for admission "without regard to how many years the alien has been residing in the United States without lawful status."

‍

III. The Circuit Split

Ten circuits have now ruled on the issue. Eight have rejected the government's broad interpretation; two have accepted it.

‍

Majority (narrow) view: The Second, Third, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits, along with the First Circuit, hold that § 1225(b)(2)(A) requires that an alien be both an "applicant for admission" and "seeking admission" — construed to mean presently pursuing lawful entry through inspection at a port of entry or upon recent border encounter. These circuits further find that the government's "29-year streak" of applying § 1226(a) to interior aliens strongly counsels against the new interpretation. Additionally, seven circuits hold that the government's reading would render § 1226(c), as amended by the Laken Riley Act (2025), superfluous, since unlawfully entered aliens would already be subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A).

‍

Minority (broad) view: The Fifth and Eighth Circuits reject any distinction between "applying for" and "seeking" admission, reasoning that an applicant for admission is inherently "seeking admission" regardless of affirmative acts toward entry, and that prior agency practice cannot override plain statutory meaning.

‍

IV. Constitutional Dimension

Several circuits have identified serious Fifth Amendment due process concerns. The Sixth Circuit held that mandatory detention without individualized bond hearings violates due process as applied to long-resident aliens who have "passed through our gates." The Second, Third, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits invoked the constitutional avoidance canon, declining to adopt the government's reading in light of these grave constitutional concerns. The executive branch counters that unadmitted aliens possess no constitutional due process protections beyond those Congress and the executive have expressly granted.

‍

V. Supreme Court Posture

Certiorari petitions have been filed by the executive branch — seeking review of the Second and Sixth Circuit decisions — and by the alien petitioner in the Fifth Circuit, where the government prevailed. The Supreme Court's 2018 decision in Jennings v. Rodriguez, while confirming that § 1225(b)(2)(A) mandates detention, expressly left open both the provision's scope as applied to interior aliens and its constitutional validity. Both questions now await resolution. The Court's forthcoming decision will define the outer limits of federal immigration detention authority, with direct consequences for millions of unadmitted aliens and for the separation of powers in immigration governance.

‍

‍