Sixth Circuit Rules: Detained Immigrants in Ohio Have the Right to a Bond Hearing – And If You Were Denied, You May Be Able to Apply Again

By Robert Ratliff | Immigration Attorney & Former U.S. Immigration Court Judge | Brennan, Manna & Diamond, LLC

May 12, 2026

On May 11, 2026, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued one of the most significant immigration detention rulings in recent memory. In Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft, a divided three-judge panel held that immigrants detained in the interior of Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee – people who have lived here for years, raised families, built businesses, and put down roots – cannot be held indefinitely without a bond hearing. They are entitled to go before an immigration judge, present their individual circumstances, and ask to be released while their cases work through the courts.

If you or someone you love was recently detained and denied bond – or told by an immigration judge that they had no authority to grant bond – this ruling may change everything. You may now have the right to a new bond hearing.

What This Case Was Actually About

The federal government has been applying a mandatory detention law – 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) – to people who entered the United States without inspection and have been living here for years. Under this interpretation, once an immigration officer determines that a long-term interior resident is not “clearly entitled to be admitted,” that person must be detained with no right to a bond hearing at all. No hearing on flight risk. No hearing on danger to the community. No opportunity to explain that you’ve lived here for a decade, that your children are U.S. citizens, that you own a home, run a business, or cooperated with law enforcement.

That is what happened to the eleven petitioners in Lopez-Campos. They are citizens of Mexico, El Salvador, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Guatemala who had lived in Ohio for years without serious incident. They were arrested, charged with entering without inspection, and detained – not under the ordinary detention statute that allows for bond hearings, but under a mandatory detention provision that immigration judges said left them powerless to act.

The Sixth Circuit said that was wrong.

The Court’s Ruling: “Seeking Admission” Requires an Affirmative Act

The legal question at the heart of the case sounds technical, but the implications are enormous: does § 1225(b)(2)(A)’s mandatory detention provision apply to people already living in the interior of the United States who never sought lawful entry at a port of inspection?

The answer, the Sixth Circuit held, is no.

The statute requires mandatory detention for noncitizens who are “seeking admission.” The court looked at the plain meaning of those words – to seek means to actively search for, to try to obtain, to make an affirmative attempt. Someone who crossed the border years ago and has been living and working in Ohio is not, at the moment of their arrest in the interior, “seeking admission” in any meaningful sense of that phrase.

Equally important, the court noted that Congress drafted this mandatory detention provision carefully. It used “seeking admission” – not “applicant for admission.” These are different phrases and they mean different things. The court refused to collapse that distinction. It also pointed to nearly thirty years of executive branch practice: from 1997 until 2025, the government itself treated interior residents as eligible for bond under a separate statute, § 1226(a), which does provide for bond hearings. That nearly three-decade practice, the court said, strongly supports the interpretation that § 1225(b)(2)(A) was never meant to reach people like the petitioners.

The ruling means that people in this situation must be processed under § 1226(a) – the statute that allows the Attorney General to release noncitizens on bond or conditional parole while their removal cases are pending.

The Circuit Split: Why This Fight Is Far From Over

Here is the hard truth: this ruling is a major win, but it is not the final word.

Five federal circuit courts have now addressed this exact question, and they have reached opposite conclusions.

Courts that agree with the Sixth Circuit – § 1225(b)(2)(A) does NOT apply to interior residents:

• Sixth Circuit (Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft, May 2026) – Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, Tennessee
• Second Circuit (Barbosa da Cunha v. Freden, April 2026) – New York, Connecticut, Vermont
• Eleventh Circuit (Hernandez Alvarez v. Warden, May 2026) – Florida, Georgia, Alabama

Courts that disagree – § 1225(b)(2)(A) DOES apply to interior residents:

• Fifth Circuit (Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 2026) – Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi
• Eighth Circuit (Avila v. Bondi, 2026) – Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota

This is what lawyers call a “circuit split,” and it is a serious one. Right now, whether you have the right to a bond hearing can depend entirely on which state you were arrested in. Detained in Ohio? You have the right to a hearing. Detained in Texas? The government can hold you without one. That is not how the rule of law is supposed to work, and it is almost certainly headed to the United States Supreme Court.

Until the Supreme Court acts, the law will remain fractured. Cases caught in this uncertainty could take years – possibly a decade or more – to fully resolve. The immigration court backlog already numbers in the millions. Bond hearings, appeals, and the time required to fully litigate these questions through the federal courts will add years to cases that the government hoped to resolve in months. I watched this firsthand as an immigration judge: mandatory detention cases were often being resolved in 90 to 120 days, with many people simply giving up after prolonged detention. Under the new landscape, people granted bond will face a system that cannot process their cases anywhere near that quickly. This places real and significant pressure on the administration’s goals of rapid deportations.

What This Means If You or a Family Member Was Denied Bond

This is the most important section of this article for many of you reading it.

If you were detained under § 1225(b)(2)(A) and denied a bond hearing – or if an immigration judge told you they lacked jurisdiction to grant bond – you may now have grounds to seek a new bond hearing under § 1226(a).

Here is what you should know:

1. The ruling is binding in the Sixth Circuit. If you are detained in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, or Tennessee, the government can no longer lawfully hold you under § 1225(b)(2)(A)’s mandatory detention scheme based solely on your status as an interior resident who entered without inspection. You are entitled to a bond hearing.
2. “Denied bond” is not the same as “denied a bond hearing.” Many immigration judges during this period were telling detainees that they had no jurisdiction to hold a bond hearing at all. That is different from holding a hearing and deciding the person should be detained. If you were told no hearing was available – not that you lost your hearing – the Lopez-Campos ruling directly addresses your situation.
3. You need to act promptly. The law in this area is changing fast. The government is likely to appeal, seek stays, and push back at every level. Having experienced legal representation right now – not next month – is critical to protecting your rights under this ruling.
4. If you are detained in a Fifth or Eighth Circuit state, the law is different. Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and the upper Midwest states have circuit court rulings that go the other way. If you or a family member is detained in those jurisdictions, speak with an attorney about what options remain available there, including constitutional arguments and appeals.
5. A bond hearing is not a guarantee of release. It is the right to stand before a judge and make your case. An immigration judge will weigh factors including your length of residence in the United States, your family ties, your employment history, your criminal record (or lack thereof), your prior immigration history, and the likelihood that you would appear for future hearings. A strong showing on these factors can result in release on bond. But you need an attorney to present that case effectively.

The Bigger Picture: Due Process and the Constitution

Beyond the statutory question, the Sixth Circuit also addressed the constitutional dimension. The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause guarantees that no person – citizen or noncitizen – shall be deprived of liberty without due process of law. The Supreme Court has long held that this protection extends to immigrants present in the United States, regardless of whether their presence is lawful.

The court reaffirmed that the most fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause is freedom from physical detention. Detaining people for months or years without any individualized determination of whether they pose a flight risk or danger to the community – without any opportunity to tell their story to a judge – runs directly against that principle.

The government argued that detaining immigrants during removal proceedings is categorically permissible. The court agreed that detention during removal proceedings can be constitutional, but rejected the argument that it is permissible without any process whatsoever. Long-term interior residents with deep ties to their communities, with U.S.-citizen children, with clean records – these are not abstract legal categories. They are real people. And the Due Process Clause requires that they at least get the chance to make that case before a neutral judge.

What Comes Next

The Supreme Court is the likely next stop for this issue, though the timing is uncertain. In the meantime:

• Cases in the Sixth Circuit states should see immediate changes as the government adjusts to the ruling
• Immigration attorneys across Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee will be filing motions to reopen bond proceedings for clients detained under § 1225(b)(2)(A)
• The government may seek emergency stays or other procedural moves to slow implementation
• Congress could attempt to legislate on this issue, though the current political dynamics make that unpredictable

The bottom line is that this area of law is in flux, the stakes are enormous, and the window to act on this ruling is right now.

If You Need Help

If you or a family member is detained in the Sixth Circuit – in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, or Tennessee – or if you believe you were previously denied a bond hearing under § 1225(b)(2)(A), please contact my office immediately.

Robert Ratliff
Member, Brennan, Manna & Diamond, LLC
Former United States Immigration Court Judge
200 Public Square, Suite 1850 | Cleveland, OH 44114
Direct: 216.232.5992
Email: raratliff@bmdllc.com
Blog & Resources: removal-defense.com
Podcast: The Immigration Podcast – available on Spotify and major platforms
Books: Pro Se Immigration Law Library (Vols. 1–3) and Navigating Post-Conviction Relief – available on Amazon

Time matters in these situations. Do not wait.

Robert Ratliff is a Member at Brennan, Manna & Diamond, LLC in Cleveland, Ohio and a former United States Immigration Court Judge with more than 25 years of immigration and federal criminal trial experience. This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to your situation, please consult an attorney.

© 2026 Robert Ratliff | Brennan, Manna & Diamond, LLC | bmdllc.com