Detained Noncitizens Owed Bond Hearings, Appeals Judges Say (1)

Immigrants suspected of entering the US illegally who have lived in the country for years must receive a chance to argue for their release if they’re arrested as part of pending deportation proceedings, a split Sixth Circuit panel said Monday.

The law “ensures that noncitizens like Petitioners should have a forum to explain that their backgrounds and connections to their communities justify release on bond while they undergo their removal proceedings,” two judges said. The petitioners “are more than just names on a pleading,” Judge Eric L. Clay of the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit wrote.

“To hold otherwise would subject long-term law-abiding residents in the United States, such as Petitioners, to the hardship of mandatory detention without due process,” said Clay, who was joined by Senior Judge R. Guy Cole. Jr. Both judges were appointed by President Bill Clinton.

The ruling is a blow to President Donald Trump’s administration, which has pushed a policy, later endorsed by the Board of Immigration Appeals, that noncitizens who’ve lived in the country for years must be detained pending deportation without the opportunity to argue for a bond in immigration court.

The appeals court is the latest one to rule on an issue that could end up in front of the US Supreme Court. So far, the Fifth and Eighth circuits sided with the Trump administration, while the Second and Eleventh circuits rejected that view.

Much of the Sixth Circuit’s opinion, which upheld decisions from three federal judges in Michigan, focused on parsing the wording of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.

Noncitizens who didn’t try to legally enter the US and are “actively avoiding” immigration officials aren’t “seeking admission” and can’t be detained without a bond hearing, Clay wrote. Congress could’ve had the law apply to everyone seeking admission to the US but didn’t do so, the judge said.

It’s consequential that the federal government chose not to apply the law at issue to noncitizens for nearly three decades, Clay said. There’s also no reason to disturb the trial judges’ due-process rulings against the administration.

Judge Eric E. Murphy, a Trump appointee, dissented, saying the language of the law makes clear that the petitioners and others like them aren’t entitled to a bond hearing. When Congress meant to limit a law’s reach to those arriving at a point of entry, it worded it accordingly, he said.

“And in nearly every other context, when Congress used phrases like ‘seeking admission’ or ‘applying for admission,’ it covered all ‘applicants for admission,’ including those present in the country after an illegal entry,” Murphy continued. “So it would be obvious that we must read the phrase ‘seeking admission’ in the detention provision in the same way—but for the harsh policy consequences.”

The administration’s new legal interpretation led to a flood of petitions in federal courts by detainees who seek to force immigration judges to let them argue for a bond. The Sixth Circuit case centers on requests by 11 immigrants who were detained but later released after winning in front of federal judges.

The detainees are also represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Michigan, while one is also represented by Russell Reid Abrutyn of Southfield, Mich. Federal officials are represented by the Justice Department.

The cases are Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft, 6th Cir., No. 25-1965, 5/11/26, Sanchez Alvarez v. Mullin, 6th Cir., No. 25-1969, 5/11/26, Contreras-Cervantes v. Raycraft, 6th Cir., No. 25-1978, 5/11/26, and Pizarro Reyes v. Raycraft, 6th Cir., No. 25-1982, 5/11/26.