Court again rejects federal government’s expanded use of mandatory detention under immigration statute
NEWARK, NJ – A federal judge has ruled that Abdellahi Jeddou, a Mauritanian national detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) since February, must be given an individualized bond hearing after finding that his detention under the federal government’s mandatory custody statute was unlawful.
Key Points
- Judge Brian R. Martinotti ruled that Abdellahi Jeddou’s detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) was improper.
- The court held that individuals already inside the U.S. must be detained, if at all, under § 1226(a), which allows bond hearings.
- The decision follows a growing number of similar rulings rejecting the federal government’s expanded detention policy.
ICE detainee challenges indefinite custody
Jeddou, a citizen of Mauritania, entered the United States without inspection in November 2023. He was arrested by ICE agents on February 5, 2026, and has been detained at the Delaney Hall Detention Center in Newark ever since.
In his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition, Jeddou argued that his continued detention without a bond hearing violates his constitutional right to due process. Federal authorities maintained that Jeddou was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), which applies to noncitizens seeking admission at or near a U.S. border.
The government based its argument on a 2025 Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision, Matter of Yajure Hurtado, which extended the mandatory detention statute to include individuals arrested within the United States after entering unlawfully.
Court rejects government’s interpretation
Judge Martinotti rejected the government’s reliance on Hurtado, echoing his earlier decision in Sandhu v. Tsoukaris (D.N.J. Nov. 20, 2025). In that case, the court ruled that the federal government’s new policy interpreting § 1225(b)(2) was inconsistent with the Immigration and Nationality Act and decades of precedent.
“The line historically drawn between these two sections is that section 1225 governs detention of noncitizens ‘seeking admission into the country,’ whereas section 1226 governs detention of noncitizens ‘already in the country,’” the opinion noted, citing Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (2018).
The ruling emphasized that § 1226(a) — not § 1225(b)(2) — is the “default rule” for detaining individuals who have already entered the country, even unlawfully. Under § 1226(a), detainees are entitled to a bond hearing before an immigration judge.
Judge orders bond hearing
Citing a growing body of federal court decisions rejecting the BIA’s expanded interpretation, Judge Martinotti found that Jeddou’s detention was unlawful and ordered the government to provide him with a bond hearing.
“For nearly 30 years, § 1225 has applied to noncitizens who are either seeking entry to the United States or have a close nexus to the border, and § 1226 has applied to those aliens arrested within the interior of the United States,” the court wrote, adding that numerous courts nationwide have reached the same conclusion.
Jeddou’s case mirrors several recent decisions in New Jersey and other states challenging ICE’s reliance on Matter of Yajure Hurtado. Courts have repeatedly found that the policy improperly deprives detainees of bond hearings and violates procedural due process rights.
The ruling means Jeddou will now be eligible for an immigration court review to determine whether he can be released while his immigration proceedings continue.
Tags: Newark, immigration, ICE
