Law360 (September 10, 2026, 8:40 PM EDT) -- The Fourth Circuit on Thursday became the ninth appellate court to declare illegal the Trump administration's detention of immigrants without bond, calling the mass detention a "stain" on the nation and comparing it to the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.

The majority noted the United States' detention of those of Japanese descent, while "shameful and abhorrent," was "limited in scope in comparison to the mandatory detention that the government urges us today to find that Congress established thirty years ago in an ambiguously worded statutory provision."

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 is the law at issue here, which was passed under the Clinton administration and overhauled how noncitizens were removed from the country. The Trump administration has maintained that this law, which amended the Immigration and Nationality Act, was meant to allow the government to deny bond hearings to people who entered the U.S. without authorization.

The Fourth Circuit responded Thursday in resounding disagreement.

"The government's novel construction would implicate the constitutional due process rights of millions of noncitizens in our country, many of whom have lived, worked, and become integral parts of their communities, for years," the majority said. "The district court's interpretation is not only fairly possible; it has been the universal interpretation of the statute for decades."

According to the Trump administration, more than 350,000 people have been deported since October, but another 66,000 remain in federal detention. The appellate court said this "mass detention of marginalized individuals without due process harkens back to some of the darkest moments in our country's history."

The U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing the internment of those of Japanese-descent wasn't formally overturned until 2018. The Fourth Circuit panel quoted the high court in saying "Japanese internment 'was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the court of history, and — to be clear — "has no place in law under the Constitution."'"

Of the 13 federal appellate courts, only the Fifth and Eighth circuits have endorsed the Trump administration's interpretation. Only the D.C. Circuit hasn't yet heard a related case.

Oscar Enrique Lopez Garcia and Juan Jose Rivera's habeas corpus petitions brought the matter before a Virginia federal court and then ultimately the Fourth Circuit. The appellate court said Thursday both men had a right under the law to "be provided a bond hearing and be eligible for release pending removal."

Lopez Garcia entered the United States as a child in 1996. The married father of two was arrested in Washington, D.C., on the way to work in October 2025.

Jose Rivera came to the U.S. from El Salvador when he was 26, more than two decades ago. He was also arrested near his home in Washington, D.C., the same month as Lopez Garcia.

U.S. Circuit Judge Allison Jones Rushing dissented from the majority, arguing the plain text of Section 1225(b)(2)(A) of the INA says that "in the case of an alien who is an applicant for admission, if the examining immigration officer determines that an alien seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted, the alien shall be detained for a proceeding under section 1229a of this title."

She said that section only lists one condition for detention: if "the examining immigration officer determines that an alien seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted."

"In sum, the statutory text, context, and history supply a ready answer to the question presented," Judge Rushing said. "Section 1225(b)(2)(A) requires the government to detain aliens who illegally entered the United States pending the outcome of their removal proceedings."

U.S. Circuit Judges Nicole Berner, Barbara Milano Keenan and Allison Jones Rushing sat on the panel for the Fourth Circuit.

The government is represented by Benjamin Timothy Hayes of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Lopez Garcia and Rivera are represented by My Khanh Ngo of the American Civil Liberties Union.

The case is Oscar Lopez Garcia v. Robert Guadian, case number 25-7044, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

--Editing by Lakshna Mehta. 

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.