Federal Appeals Courts Push Back on Expanded Mandatory Immigration Detention Without Bond Hearings

Martha Arias — Wed, 13 May 2026 16:55:55 +0000

Another Federal Appeals Court Rejects Expanded Mandatory Immigration Detention Without Bond Hearings

A new federal appeals court decision has added another important development to the national debate over immigration detention, bond hearings, and due process.

On May 11, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a published decision in Lopez-Campos, et al. v. Raycraft, et al. The court affirmed several district court decisions granting habeas petitions to detained noncitizens who argued that the government had unlawfully denied them access to bond hearings. The petitioners were detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), but they argued that their detention should instead be governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226, which can allow release on bond or conditional parole while removal proceedings are pending.

This decision is especially important because the Sixth Circuit joined the Second Circuit and the Eleventh Circuit in rejecting the government’s broader interpretation of mandatory detention. It was the third federal appeals court decision rejecting the government’s position that certain noncitizens already living inside the United States may be held under § 1225(b)(2)(A) without access to an individualized bond hearing.

Why This Decision Matters

Immigration detention can have serious consequences for families. A person may be separated from children, spouses, work, medical care, and community support while their immigration case continues.

That is why the legal authority used to detain a person matters. Some detention laws are mandatory. Other detention laws allow a person to ask for bond. A bond hearing does not guarantee release, but it gives the person an opportunity to present evidence about family ties, community ties, work history, lack of danger, and likelihood of appearing at future hearings.

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), certain applicants for admission must be detained for removal proceedings if an examining immigration officer determines they are not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted.

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), the government may arrest and detain a noncitizen pending a decision on removal, but that provision also permits release on bond or conditional parole, except where mandatory detention rules apply. The Sixth Circuit described § 1226 as the detention framework for many noncitizens already inside the United States while their removal proceedings are pending.

The key question in these cases is whether a person who entered without inspection and has already been living inside the United States can be treated as someone still “seeking admission” under § 1225(b)(2)(A), or whether that person falls under § 1226 and may request bond.

The Government’s Position Came From a 2025 BIA Decision

The government’s position was strengthened by a September 5, 2025 decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), Matter of Yajure Hurtado. In that precedential decision, the BIA held that immigration judges lack authority to hear bond requests or grant bond to people who are present in the United States without admission.

The BIA reasoned that people present in the United States without admission are applicants for admission under § 1225(b)(2)(A) and must be detained for the duration of their removal proceedings.

That interpretation represented a major shift from what several federal courts described as a long-standing practice of allowing many people in this situation to seek bond under § 1226(a). The Eleventh Circuit noted that, for nearly thirty years, the answer had generally been that unadmitted noncitizens found inside the United States were eligible for bond while going through immigration proceedings, but that DHS took a different view in 2025.

What the Sixth Circuit Decided

In Lopez-Campos, the Sixth Circuit rejected the government’s argument.

The court explained that U.S. immigration law authorizes detention under different statutory frameworks. It noted that § 1225(b)(2)’s mandatory detention scheme applies to certain noncitizens who seek admission into the country, while § 1226 applies to other noncitizens pending a decision on removability, with exceptions.

The Sixth Circuit stated that hundreds of district courts and five other federal circuits had already addressed this statutory question. It then expressly joined the Second and Eleventh Circuits in holding that § 1225(b)(2)(A) does not apply to noncitizens like the petitioners in that case.

The petitioners in the Sixth Circuit case were people who had lived in the United States for years. Many were parents of U.S. citizen children. They were arrested by immigration authorities inside the United States and were denied bond because immigration judges concluded they lacked authority to grant bond under the BIA’s interpretation. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district courts’ rulings in favor of the petitioners.

The Eleventh Circuit Decision Matters Deeply for Florida

For families in Florida, the Eleventh Circuit decision is especially important because the Eleventh Circuit covers Florida, Georgia, and Alabama.

On May 6, 2026, the Eleventh Circuit issued its decision in Hernandez Alvarez v. Warden, Federal Detention Center Miami. The court framed the issue clearly: whether unadmitted noncitizens found in the interior of the United States are eligible for bond while going through immigration proceedings.

The Eleventh Circuit rejected the government’s reinterpretation of § 1225(b)(2)(A). It held that the statute’s no-bond detention rule is limited to applicants for admission who are “seeking admission,” and that the petitioners in that case were not seeking lawful entry when they were detained after traffic stops.

This does not mean every detained person in Florida will be released. But it may be very important for certain people detained in Florida who were denied bond because the immigration court believed it had no authority to consider bond.

The Second Circuit Reached a Similar Result

The Second Circuit also rejected the government’s position in Barbosa da Cunha v. Freden. In that case, the court held that § 1225(b)(2)(A) did not apply to a noncitizen who was already present in the United States after entering without inspection and who was not apprehended while seeking admission. The court concluded that detention was governed by § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2)(A).

The Second Circuit also made an important clarification: its decision did not disturb mandatory detention for people apprehended while entering the country or shortly thereafter, and it did not disturb mandatory detention under § 1226(c) for certain criminal or terrorism-related grounds. Instead, the ruling concerned people already present inside the United States who may be eligible for bond under § 1226(a).

What This Decision Does Not Mean

This decision does not give anyone legal status. It does not cancel removal proceedings. It does not mean that every detained person must be released. It does not guarantee bond.

A bond hearing is an opportunity to ask for release while the immigration case continues. At that hearing, the person may need to show that they are not a danger to the community and that they are likely to appear for future immigration court hearings.

The Sixth Circuit also recognized that not all federal appeals courts agree on this issue. It noted that other circuits have addressed the same statutory question and reached different conclusions. Because of that disagreement, this area of law may continue to develop.

Why Families Should Pay Attention

If someone you love is detained by immigration authorities, the legal basis for detention should be reviewed carefully.

This decision may matter if the person has been living inside the United States, was detained by ICE or immigration authorities away from the border, was denied bond because the immigration judge said there was no authority to grant bond, or was treated as subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A).

However, every case is different. Some people may still be subject to mandatory detention under other provisions, including certain criminal-related detention provisions. The Laken Riley Act also amended § 1226 in 2025 to add mandatory detention language for certain inadmissible noncitizens charged with, arrested for, convicted of, or admitting acts related to specified offenses.

For this reason, families should not assume that one court decision automatically applies to every detained person. The facts, location of detention, immigration history, criminal history, prior orders, pending relief, and federal circuit all matter.

26 Feb

Immigration News & Updates, Immigration Process Explained, Legal Resources & Guides

The Laken Riley Act: A Major Shift in U.S. Immigration Law

Posted by Martha Arias

March 13, 2025

The U.S. Congress has passed a significant new law—the Laken Riley Act—that brings major changes to immigration policies, particularly ...

Practical Steps for Families

If a loved one is detained, families should begin gathering documents immediately. Helpful documents may include:

proof of identity,
immigration court paperwork,
the Notice to Appear,
custody documents,
prior immigration decisions,
proof of residence,
marriage certificates,
children’s birth certificates,
medical records,
employment records,
tax records where available,
letters of support,
proof of community ties, and
evidence showing that the person is not a danger and is likely to attend future hearings.

These documents can be important in a bond request. They can also help an attorney determine whether habeas relief, a renewed bond request, or another legal step may be appropriate.

Final Thoughts

This decision is important because it reminds us that immigration detention is not only a matter of enforcement. It is also a matter of statutory limits, due process, and individualized review.

The Sixth Circuit did not say that immigration detention is unlawful in every case. It did not order a blanket release of detained immigrants. But it did reject the government’s attempt to apply § 1225(b)(2)(A) to certain noncitizens already living inside the United States in a way that would deny them access to bond hearings.

For families, this distinction can be very meaningful. A bond hearing may be the first opportunity to explain who the person is, how long they have lived here, whether they have family and community support, and why they should be allowed to continue their immigration case outside detention.

If you or a loved one is facing immigration detention or removal proceedings, it is important to speak with an immigration attorney as soon as possible.

For immigration guidance, you may contact my office at 305-671-0018.

Martha L. Arias, Esq.
Immigration Law Attorney

Contact us today with your immigration questions.

With a passion for immigration law and a commitment to client advocacy, Immigration Law Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq. provides the experienced legal representation for U.S. citizenship, employment and business visas, specialized on investor visas, green card petitions, deportation defense, and more. Schedule a consultation with the attorney today to discuss your immigration needs.

MIAMI OFFICE:
ARIAS VILLA, PLLC
Address: 9100 S Dadeland Blvd, #510
Miami, FL 33156
Phone: (305) 671-0018
Mobile: (305) 233-3110
Email: martha@ariasvilla.com

OFFICE HOURS:
Monday: 9 AM – 5:30 PM
Tuesday: 9 AM – 6 PM
Wednesday: 9 AM – 6 PM
Thursday: 9 AM – 5:30 PM
Friday: 9 AM – 3 PM
Saturday: Closed
Sunday: Closed

Martha L. Arias, Esq.
Immigration Law Attorney

Immigration Law Attorney with Decades of Experience

For professional and dedicated immigration law services in Miami, reach out to our immigration attorney Martha Arias and her team at Arias Villa, PLLC. Schedule your consultation today and let us help you achieve your immigration goals.

CALL NOW

BOOK AN APPOINTMENT

Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship. Immigration law changes quickly, and the outcome of any case depends on the facts, the law, the court, the person’s immigration history, and the jurisdiction where the case is pending.

The post Federal Appeals Courts Push Back on Expanded Mandatory Immigration Detention Without Bond Hearings appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

Eleventh Circuit Archives - Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq.