#1226/5th
LightNews LightNews
cncndn.bsky.social
Direnişin 1️⃣8️⃣2️⃣1️⃣. günü #5Yıl
29 Aralık 2025 Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Akademisyenleri Nöbeti no. 1226 #KabulEtmiyoruzVazgeçmiyoruz

December 29, 2025 Bogazici University Faculty Vigil #1226/5th year/1821st day of the resistance #WeDoNotAcceptWeDoNotGiveUp
December 30, 2025 at 8:45 AM
gabrielmalor.bsky.social
9th Cir., 2-1, joins the 2d, 6th, 10th, and 11th Cirs. in holding that DHS cannot detain unadmitted noncitizens found living inside the United States without the possibility of bond while their removal proceedings are pending.

Circuits split with 5th and 8th.

cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/op...
In this case, we conclude that § 1225(b)(2)(A), based on its text and context, is best construed as applying to aliens entering the United States at the border. Section 1226, by contrast, is best understood as governing inadmissible and deportable aliens present in the interior of the United States. While the relevant statutory provisions are not pellucidly clear, the text, context, and history of the INA are more supportive of the plaintiffs’ interpretation.
July 30, 2026 at 4:40 PM
bobresists.bsky.social
Violation of the 4th and 5th, 14th Amendments
Violation of Section 236 of the INA (8 U.S.C. § 1226) and
8 U.S.C. § 1324b.

The man needs a good lawyer.
March 15, 2025 at 5:12 PM
rlreevesjr.bsky.social
Sunday Feb 15 2026
Daytime party!
1pm
My 5th annual Treme gumbo party
Little People's Place
1226 Barracks St.
Live DJ spinning Mardi Gras vinyl
February 10, 2026 at 8:04 PM
mikesacks.bsky.social
CA11, 2-1, says Trump can’t detain without bond undocumented immigrants found within the country’s interior (as opposed to at the border).

Clinton/Obama judges in majority. Trump judge dissents.

Ruling deepens circuit split. This issue is def SCOTUS-bound

storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2026/05/...
Before ROSENBAUM, LAGOA, and MARCUS, Circuit Judges. MARCUS, Circuit Judge: The question we face today is whether unadmitted aliens found in the interior of the United States are eligible for bond while they go through immigration proceedings. For nearly thirty years, the answer to that question was, for most aliens, "yes." Last year, the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") took a different view. It now maintains that these aliens must be detained without bond under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). We are called on to decide if the Government's new reading of § 1225(b)(2)(A) is correct. Hundreds of district courts and four other circuits have already weighed in, reaching well-reasoned yet distinctly contrary conclusions. See Cunha v. Freden, No. 25-3141, 2026 WL 1146044 (2d Cir. Apr. 28, 2026); Avila v. Bondi, 170 F.4th 1128 (8th Cir. 2026); Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026); Castañon-Nava v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048 (7th Cir. 2025); see also Castañon-Nava v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., No. 25-3050, 2026 WL 1223250 (7th Cir. May 5, 2026). This is the first time our Court has addressed the question. In these consolidated appeals, Petitioners -- Fidencio Her- nandez Alvarez and Ismael Cerro Perez - were detained without the possibility of a bond hearing pursuant to § 1225(b)(2)(A). Each challenged his detention under the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), as amended by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 ("IIRIRA"), Pub. L. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 8, 18, and 28 U.S.C.). On review of Petitioners' habeas claims, the district court held that the discretionary detention provisions found in § 1226 governed their detention instead, rendering each of them eligible for bond. The Government appeals that decision. It insists that under § 1225(b)(2)(A), Petitioners - as aliens present in the United States without having been lawfully admitted - are "appli-cants for admission," and so they must be detained without the possibility of bond unless they can establish clearly and beyond a doubt that they are entitled to be admitted. We are unpersuaded by the Government's re-interpretation of § 1225(b)(2)(A). That provision limits no-bond detention to applicants for admission who are "seeking admission," and on the facts of this case, neither Petitioner was seeking lawful entry into the United States after inspection by an immigration officer when he was arrested, nor was either Petitioner taking any cognizable step to obtain the rights and privileges of lawful entry. In fact, neither Petitioner was pursuing any object, let alone "lawful entry," when he was detained following a traffic stop. The text and statutory structure of the INA, bolstered by the long history of detention across our immigration laws and the congressional purpose in passing IIRIRA, yield the conclusion that no-bond detention generally applies to arriving aliens seeking lawful entry to the country, and not to aliens who are simply present here. Finally, we reject the Government's claim that even if it has misread the INA, Petitioners are now "seeking admission" because they did not voluntarily self-deport after the initiation of removal proceedings. We do not hold that Congress is without the power to authorize the detention of unadmitted aliens who are simply present in the country. That question is not before us. We hold only that Congress has not done so under the provisions found in the INA. Nor do we decide whether either Petitioner is a flight risk or would pose a danger to the community if he were released on bond. That, too, is not before us. We affirm the grant of habeas relief in each of these consol- idated cases. LAGOA, Circuit Judge, Dissenting: The majority concedes that "applicant for admission" and "seeking admission," on their ordinary meaning, are "synony-mous." Maj. Op. 15-16. It then spends fifty pages explaining why the ordinary meaning does not apply. The Fifth and Eighth Circuits disagree. See Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026); Avila v. Bondi, 170 F.4th 1128 (8th Cir. 2026). So do I. I respectfully dissent.
May 6, 2026 at 11:29 PM
andthelistgrows.bsky.social
Dimitrouleas switch is weird, back in Dec. he used 3 pages of analysis to come out with a positive finding that §1226 applies, not §1225 and granted habeus.

Now short brief he cites 5th circuit and says govt right and §1225 applies & denies habeus.
Plaintiff missed reply brief, maybe that's why?
April 3, 2026 at 2:35 PM
shazzag.bsky.social
I was a Lib Dem candidate in the recent election in a previously tory stronghold. I missed beating the Tory by 13 votes, coming second with 1226 votes. Labour came a distant 5th with 69 votes. They've already lost decent, tolerant left wing voters. I know because I used to be one...
May 12, 2025 at 12:20 PM