10th Circuit Blocks ICE From Resetting Detention Clock for Repeat Arrests
A US federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday, 21 October 2026, that immigration agents cannot start a fresh six-month period of presumed reasonable detention each time they arrest again a person who already has a final removal order. The decision by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals marks a significant limitation on how Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) manages individuals with outstanding deportation orders who have previously been released from custody.
The ruling binds federal courts only in Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming, making it a precedent for six states rather than a national rule. Florida is not one of the six states bound by this ruling, meaning ICE operations in that state remain unaffected by this specific legal constraint.
The Case of Kaveh Abedi
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decided the case of Kaveh Abedi, an Iranian man who lived under ICE supervision for more than 20 years before agents handcuffed him in his front yard in Kansas. Abedi’s situation became the focal point of the legal challenge after he was arrested again despite having previously served time under a final removal order.
The three-judge panel ruled 2 to 1 in a published opinion written by Judge Carolyn McHugh. The majority held that the government broke its own rules by failing to give Abedi a prompt informal interview after revoking his release, noting no interview took place for more than six months. This procedural failure was central to the court's determination that the continued detention lacked proper justification.
Judge Allison Eid dissented, arguing that the appeal should have been dismissed because Abedi had already been released. However, the majority held that the case was not moot, reasoning that an eight-month detention is too short to be fully appealed and that Abedi could realistically be arrested again. This reasoning allowed the court to address the substantive legal question regarding the duration of detention.
Legal Precedent and Future Implications
The judges sent the case back to the district court in Kansas to decide whether holding Abedi was reasonable without any presumption in the government’s favor. This remand requires a lower court to evaluate the specific circumstances of Abedi’s detention under the new framework established by the appeals court.
In 2001, the Supreme Court decided in a case called Zadvydas that ICE cannot hold someone with a final removal order indefinitely when removal is not likely soon, setting a six-month period in which detention is presumed reasonable. The 10th Circuit’s ruling interprets this precedent to mean that once that initial six-month period expires, the government cannot simply reset the clock through re-arrest without demonstrating new justification for continued custody.
While the court’s opinion never mentions Cuba, Periódico Cubano reported on 23 October that the decision could help Cubans with deportation orders. The potential impact on this demographic stems from the broader application of the ruling within the six-state jurisdiction, where individuals facing removal may find it harder to be held indefinitely without periodic review.