Sixth Circuit Says Certain Immigrants Detained by ICE Must Have Access to Bond Hearings

On May 11, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued an important published immigration detention decision in Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft. The court affirmed several Michigan federal district court rulings that found the government had unlawfully detained certain noncitizens under the wrong immigration detention statute. The Sixth Circuit’s official opinion listing shows the published decision in consolidated case numbers 25-1965, 25-1969, 25-1978, and 25-1982.

The case matters because it addresses a common and urgent question for families dealing with ICE detention: Can ICE hold someone without a bond hearing simply because the person entered the United States without inspection years ago?

The Sixth Circuit’s answer, for the people in this case, was no. The court held that these long-term residents should not have been detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), a mandatory detention provision. Instead, the court said their detention fell under 8 U.S.C. § 1226, which can allow a bond hearing before an immigration judge.

What Happened in This Case?

The petitioners were citizens of Mexico, El Salvador, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Guatemala. According to the Sixth Circuit, many had lived in the United States for years and were parents of U.S. citizen children. ICE or Border Patrol arrested them, charged them with entering without inspection, and detained them without first giving them an individualized bond hearing to decide whether they were a flight risk or danger to the community.

The government relied on 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), which says that certain applicants for admission “shall be detained” for removal proceedings. The current U.S. Code defines some people present in the United States without admission as “applicants for admission,” and § 1225(b)(2)(A) contains mandatory detention language for certain people seeking admission.

But the Sixth Circuit focused on the phrase “seeking admission.” The court explained that people arrested inside the United States after living here for years are not necessarily “seeking admission” in the way § 1225(b)(2)(A) requires. Because of that, the court held that this mandatory detention statute did not apply to the petitioners.

Why 8 U.S.C. § 1226 Matters

The difference between § 1225 and § 1226 is very important in immigration bond cases.

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), a person may be detained while removal proceedings are pending, but the law also allows release on bond or conditional parole in many cases. The official U.S. Code states that the Attorney General may continue detention or may release the person on bond of at least $1,500 or conditional parole, unless a mandatory detention exception applies.

That means a person detained under § 1226(a) may have the chance to ask an immigration judge for bond. At a bond hearing, the judge may consider factors such as family ties, length of residence in the United States, work history, criminal record, prior immigration history, danger to the community, and likelihood of appearing for future court dates.

The Sixth Circuit held that the petitioners should have had access to this type of individualized review instead of being held under a mandatory detention theory that gave them no meaningful bond hearing.

The Court Also Discussed Due Process

The Sixth Circuit also addressed the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The court explained that noncitizens who have entered the United States, even without lawful status, are still protected by due process in immigration proceedings. The court emphasized that freedom from physical detention is a core liberty interest, and that detention should be connected to valid immigration purposes such as ensuring appearance in court and protecting the community.

In practical terms, the court said the government cannot automatically deny people a real opportunity to explain why they should be released while their immigration cases continue.

How This Decision Relates to the BIA’s Matter of Yajure Hurtado

Before this Sixth Circuit decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals issued Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA 2025). In that decision, the BIA held that immigration judges lacked authority to hear bond requests for certain people present in the United States without admission and subject to § 1225(b)(2)(A).

The BIA is the highest administrative body for interpreting and applying immigration laws, and DOJ states that BIA decisions are binding on DHS officers and immigration judges unless modified or overruled by the Attorney General or a federal court.

The Sixth Circuit’s decision is significant because it rejected the government’s use of that mandatory detention approach for these petitioners. This creates an important protection for many people detained in states within the Sixth Circuit.

Who May Be Helped by This Decision?

This decision may help certain people who:

• were arrested by ICE or Border Patrol inside the United States;
• entered without inspection but have lived in the United States for years;
• are being held under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A);
• were denied a bond hearing because the immigration judge said there was no jurisdiction;
• have family, work, community ties, or other evidence supporting release.

This decision does not mean that every detained person will automatically be released. It means that some detained people may have the right to ask for a bond hearing or challenge unlawful detention, depending on their facts, location, criminal history, immigration history, and the statute ICE is using.

What Families Should Do if a Loved One Is Detained by ICE

If your loved one is detained by ICE and has been denied bond, it is important to act quickly. An immigration attorney can review the Notice to Appear, custody documents, bond decision, and detention statute to determine whether the person may qualify for a bond hearing or habeas petition.

Important documents to gather include:

• ICE detention paperwork;
• Notice to Appear;
• immigration court hearing notices;
• prior bond orders or bond denial;
• proof of family ties;
• proof of work history;
• proof of address;
• medical records, if relevant;
• criminal records, if any;
• evidence of community support.

Why This Case Is Important

The Sixth Circuit’s decision confirms that immigration detention is not always automatic. For many families, a bond hearing can be the difference between fighting an immigration case from detention and fighting the case while living with family, working, and preparing evidence.

If someone you love is detained by ICE, do not assume that “no bond” is the final answer. The law may provide a way to challenge detention and request release.

Here is an adapted footer for the immigration detention / bond hearing blog:

Need Help With ICE Detention or an Immigration Bond Hearing?

ICE detention can move quickly, and families are often told that a loved one has “no bond” without fully understanding whether that decision can be challenged. If someone you love was detained by ICE, denied bond, or told that the immigration judge has no authority to set bond, experienced legal guidance can make a critical difference.

📞 Contact the Law Firm of Anna Korneeva at (513) 334-3008 to review the detention paperwork, understand whether a bond hearing or federal habeas challenge may be available, and take urgent steps to protect your loved one’s rights.