Following the Eleventh Circuit’s historic ruling in Alvarez v. Warden, individuals arrested by ICE within Florida, Georgia, and Alabama may no longer be subjected to mandatory, no-bond detention and are potentially eligible for a bond hearing. While release is not automatic and requires proving strong community ties and a lack of flight risk before an immigration judge, this decision provides a vital legal avenue to challenge interior detentions through federal habeas corpus actions or immigration court. For more information, call the Law Offices of Rhonda F. Gelfman, P.A., 305-944-9120.

Alvarez v. Warden, Federal Detention Center Miami,

No. 25-14065 (11th Cir. May 6, 2026)

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled interior-detained immigrants who entered without inspection are entitled to individualized bond hearings.

In a landmark 2-1 decision issued in spring 2026, the Eleventh Circuit rejected the federal government’s policy of denying bond hearings to these individuals. This decision has an immediate and direct impact on immigration enforcement and detention practices across Florida, Georgia, and Alabama.

What This Means for Detainees in Florida, Georgia, and Alabama:

• The Eleventh Circuit explicitly rejected the government’s interpretation of INA § 235(b) (8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)), which argued that anyone present in the U.S. without legal admission is an “applicant for admission” and must remain in mandatory detention without a hearing.
  
  Because the Eleventh Circuit ruled that section 235(b) does not apply to noncitizens arrested in the interior, it concluded that their detention is instead governed by INA § 236(a) (8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)). This statute preserves the right to request a discretionary bond hearing before an immigration judge. With this ruling, the Eleventh Circuit firmly aligns with the Second, Third, and Sixth Circuits, which have similarly pushed back against the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) 2025 restrictive policy in Matter of Yajure Hurtado.
  
  This places the Eleventh Circuit in direct opposition to the Fifth and Eighth Circuits, further solidifying a profound split that is widely expected to be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court.

OTHER CIRCUIT’S RULING ON THIS ISSUE:

• Third Circuit (Buele Morocho v. Warden Philadelphia FDC, August 2026):
  
  Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware, along with the U.S. territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands:
  
  The Third Circuit ruled that individuals who entered without inspection and were later arrested inside the country are governed by § 1226(a) and may request a bond hearing before an immigration judge.
• Tenth Circuit (Santillan Quiroz v. Mullin, June 2026):
  
  Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming
  
  The Tenth Circuit held that interior-arrested noncitizens are not automatically barred from bond and rejected the administration’s broad no-bond interpretation.
• Sixth Circuit (Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft, May 2026):
  
  Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee
  
  The Sixth Circuit affirmed that mandatory detention provisions do not apply to noncitizens already residing inside the United States, aligning with favorable precedent in other circuits.
• Fifth & Eighth Circuits:
  
  Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota

The Eighth Circuit (Avila v. Bondi) endorsed broad mandatory detention. The Fifth Circuit initially upheld the no-bond policy (Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi_), briefly issued a panel ruling requiring 90-day due process bond hearings (Sosnava-Rodriguez v. Ortega), but then set aside that panel decision to schedule an en banc rehearing. A final decision from the full Fifth Circuit is expected between December 2026 and March 2027.

Where circuits permit bond hearings (such as the Second, Third, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits), immigration judges evaluate traditional individual factors: flight risk, danger to the community, criminal history, and community ties. The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review related prolonged-detention questions, meaning the exact availability of a hearing still depends heavily on the judicial circuit where a person is detained.

The Law Offices of Rhonda F. Gelfman, P.A. has over 36 years of experience assisting immigrants from all over the world with their immigration concerns. If you or a loved one is currently held by immigration, please contact our office at (305) 944-9120.