Indian American foreign policy scholar Ashley J. Tellis returned to federal court this week to oppose the Justice Department’s latest attempt to place him in pretrial detention, arguing that prosecutors have failed to meet the legal threshold required to reopen his release conditions.

In a detailed filing, Tellis’s legal team urged the judge to dismiss the government’s motion, saying federal law clearly demands that prosecutors identify information that is both new and material to the question of detention. According to the defence, the government has presented nothing that meets either requirement.

Tellis faces a single charge under U.S. statutes involving the unlawful retention of national defense information. The case stems from two China-related documents cited in the indictment. His lawyers emphasize that the charge does not allege dissemination of the materials, nor does it claim that Tellis attempted to share classified information with any foreign entity.

The well-known policy expert was released on strict conditions on October 21 after prosecutors and the defence jointly recommended home confinement, electronic monitoring, restricted communications, and a ban on internet access. He also surrendered his passport. Since then, probation officials have reported no violations, and the defence says Tellis has “meticulously adhered” to the court’s directives.

Central to the dispute is whether Tellis should remain under home confinement or be moved into federal custody as he awaits trial. Prosecutors have argued that new concerns have emerged, but the defence counters that the government is attempting to rely on information it previously possessed — or could reasonably have obtained — before the first detention hearing.

Tellis’s attorneys also note that under the Bail Reform Act, prosecutors cannot argue dangerousness because the charge against him does not fall within the statutes that allow such a claim. “The government may argue only risk of flight,” the filing states, adding that Tellis’s long-standing professional reputation, family ties, and deep roots in his Virginia community contradict any suggestion that he might flee the country.

The defence further disputes the government’s characterisation of materials seized during an October search of Tellis’s home and office. They say prosecutors “reasonably could have known” the nature of the documents earlier and that the claim of new evidence is unsupported. They also highlight Tellis’s cooperation with investigators, pointing out that he voluntarily turned over additional hard drives and documents after the search, demonstrating transparency rather than concealment.

His lawyers argue that placing Tellis in custody would severely hinder his ability to assist in reviewing sensitive, classified materials essential for preparing his defence. They warn that his expert knowledge of national security documents is crucial for evaluating the evidence, and incarceration would complicate that process.

The judge will now decide whether prosecutors have provided sufficient grounds to reopen the detention hearing — a determination that depends on showing genuinely new and materially significant information. The case is expected to move into its next procedural phase once that decision is issued.