A federal appeals court has rejected the Trump administration’s immigration detention policy in a lawsuit that focused on whether many people arrested inside the United States can be held without a chance to ask for bond.
The ruling came from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on April 28, 2026. The case is Cunha v. Freden, involving Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha, a Brazilian national who had lived in the United States for more than 20 years.
The court affirmed a lower court decision that said his detention was governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which allows bond hearings, not 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), which the government used to argue for mandatory detention.
What the Lawsuit Was Really About
At the heart of the case was one practical question: can the government treat people already living inside the country as if they are still “applicants for admission” and then deny them bond?
The Trump administration argued that certain noncitizens who entered without inspection should be held under Section 1225(b)(2)(A).
That section covers some people seeking admission into the country and makes them subject to mandatory detention while their immigration cases move forward.
The Second Circuit disagreed. The court said that Section 1225(b)(2)(A) does not apply to people like Cunha, who were already living inside the United States and were not arrested at or near the border when entering.
The court found that Section 1226(a) applies instead, which means a person may ask an immigration judge for release on bond while the case continues.
Why This Case Drew So Much Attention
Cunha’s personal facts made the issue easy to understand. According to the court, he entered the United States without inspection around 2005, applied for asylum in 2016, received work authorization, owned a home, ran a small construction business, was married, had two U.S. citizen children, and had never been convicted of a crime.
ICE arrested him in September 2025 while he was driving to work.
After his arrest, an immigration judge first found that he was subject to mandatory detention and could not get bond. He then filed a habeas petition, which is a legal request asking a court to review whether someone is being held lawfully.
The district court ordered the government to give him a bond hearing or release him. After that hearing, an immigration judge found he was not a danger or flight risk and ordered him released on bond.
The Court’s Strongest Point
The Second Circuit made clear that its ruling does not stop the government from detaining people in all immigration cases. It said the decision does not change mandatory detention rules for people arrested while entering the country or soon after entering.
It also does not change mandatory detention rules for people covered by certain criminal or terrorism-related grounds.
What the court rejected was the broader idea that millions of people already inside the country could be denied bond hearings under the government’s new reading of the law.
The opinion said that, even if the government’s reading were possible, it would raise serious constitutional concerns because it would create one of the broadest detention-without-bond policies in U.S. history.
What Happens Next
This ruling does not end the national fight. Reuters reported that two other federal appeals courts had already ruled the other way on similar bond hearing disputes.
That split among appeals courts makes it more likely that the U.S. Supreme Court may eventually be asked to settle the issue.
For now, the Second Circuit’s decision is a major setback for the Trump administration’s detention policy within that circuit.
It also gives immigration lawyers and detained people a strong ruling to point to when arguing that long-time residents arrested inside the country should at least get a chance to ask for bond.
The key point is clear: the court did not decide whether Cunha could stay in the United States permanently. It was decided that the government used the wrong detention law to deny him a bond hearing while his immigration case continues.
