Related videos:
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued a historic ruling on Thursday in favor of migrants detained by ICE in Florida, Georgia, and Alabama, determining that the government cannot indefinitely detain those who were already in the country without bail upon their arrest.
The case that led to the ruling involves two Mexicans who had been in the country for years and were arrested during a traffic stop in 2025, and transferred to federal detention centers in Miami without the option to request bail.
The legal key to the ruling is the distinction between two sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Section 1225, which mandates mandatory detention without bail, applies to those who are "seeking admission" at the border. Section 1226(a), on the other hand, guarantees the right to a bail hearing for those who are already present inside the country.
The court was emphatic in its majority opinion: "The language that Congress has chosen to use does not grant the Executive Branch unlimited authority to detain—without the possibility of bail—any inadmissible foreign national present in the country."
According to the Venezuelan paralegal Yanet Muñoz, the court's decision could allow many individuals who entered through the border to have access to a bail hearing and be able to request their release while the process continues.
"For nearly 30 years, the answer to the question of whether one has the right to bail was: 'always'. Thirty years. And last year, the Trump administration changed that stance," said Muñoz, referring to the policy set by the acting director of ICE, Todd M. Lyons, on July 8, regarding treating all migrants who entered without inspection as subject to mandatory detention without bail.
"But today the eleventh circuit said to them: 'you are mistaken'," the expert remarked with satisfaction.
Muñoz detailed on Instagram that the two Mexicans whose claim led to the ruling were not seeking to enter the United States; they were already inside. The court was clear: detention without bail generally applies to those who are "seeking admission" or a "legal entry" at the time of their arrest.
What rights does the court's decision not grant?
It is essential to understand that the ruling does not provide automatic freedom for the immigrant, nor does it halt deportation processes or close individual cases. It merely reaffirms the right to appear before an immigration judge to request bail.
Immigration attorney Carla Casas clarified to Telemundo 51 that detained immigrants must formally request a bond hearing and demonstrate that they do not pose a danger to the community or a flight risk.
"The person must also demonstrate that they will not flee and that they are not a danger to society," he added.
What steps can the administration take?
Yanet Muñoz was clear about what may happen in the immediate future: "The government can appeal."
On the other hand, the ruling deepens a historical divide among federal courts.
The Fifth and Eighth Circuits supported the government's policy of mandatory detention, in 2-1 split decisions last February. The Second Circuit unanimously rejected it in April, labeling it as "the broadest mandate for mass detention without bail in the nation's history." In the Seventh Circuit, the judges did not reach a consensus: one supports the government, another opposes it, and the third did not express a opinion.
"This makes it almost inevitable that the Supreme Court will have to take action," the expert specified, who anticipates that Thursday's ruling will become another step in a legal battle that has not yet concluded.
For the Cuban community, the impact is particularly significant. The arrests of Cubans by ICE increased by 463% since October 2024, with 1,152 Cubans arrested by January 2026, 60% of whom are in South Florida.
Filed under: