What happened
The Tenth Circuit ruled Tuesday that an Oklahoma immigration detainee held for more than eight months must be given a bond hearing or released, rejecting the federal government's position that a mandatory-detention provision bars him from seeking release while removal proceedings remain pending.
In a published opinion by U.S. Circuit Judge Richard E.N. Federico, the panel reversed the denial of Rigoberto Santillan Quiroz's habeas petition and held that his detention falls under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which permits bond, rather than 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), which the government argued required detention without a bond hearing. The case returns to the Western District of Oklahoma, which must order the government to provide a bond hearing within seven days of its order after mandate or release him.
The ruling adds the Tenth Circuit to one side of a national split over the government's 2025 shift in immigration detention policy. The court said the government did not take the position that people like Santillan Quiroz are ineligible for release until July 2025, and that the new interpretation has produced a surge of habeas petitions challenging mandatory detention.
According to the opinion, Santillan Quiroz entered the United States in 2006, has lived here since, is married to a lawful permanent resident and has a U.S.-citizen stepdaughter. ICE detained him after a traffic stop in November 2025 and initiated removal proceedings on the ground that he entered without admission or parole. The government then kept him in custody under its reading of § 1225(b)(2)(A), without giving him a chance to argue for release before an immigration judge.
The Tenth Circuit said immigration detention authority after the 1996 immigration overhaul is split between § 1225 and § 1226. Section 1225 mandates detention for people subject to that provision and does not mention bond, while § 1226 allows immigration officials to release a person on bond subject to exceptions. The panel said the government's own regulation after the 1996 law treated arriving noncitizens at the border as subject to § 1225, while people already inside the country without admission or parole were eligible for bond under § 1226.
The panel emphasized that the government maintained that understanding for five presidential administrations before reversing course in July 2025. It also pointed to the U.S. Supreme Court's description in Jennings v. Rodriguez that § 1225 governs noncitizens at the nation's borders and ports of entry, while § 1226 generally governs arrest and detention of people already inside the country.
The court also invoked constitutional avoidance, saying the government's interpretation would raise serious due process concerns by requiring detention, without potential bond, for potentially millions of noncitizens. The panel said it did not need to decide whether the government's position is unconstitutional because the serious constitutional questions were another reason to limit § 1225(b)(2)(A) to the border.
The Tenth Circuit acknowledged that the issue is likely headed for the U.S. Supreme Court. It said the Second, Sixth and Eleventh Circuits have rejected the government's reading, while the Fifth and Eighth Circuits have accepted it, and that thousands of noncitizens in the Tenth Circuit are likely affected by the government's policy.