Background
Petitioners are noncitizens without lawful status who were arrested by immigration agents and detained without a bond hearing under the mandatory detention scheme of 8 U.S.C. Section 1225(b)(2)(A). They filed habeas corpus petitions arguing that the government should have detained them under 8 U.S.C. Section 1226, which permits bond hearings, and that their detention without such a hearing violated the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. The district courts granted the petitions, and the government appealed.
The court’s reasoning
The court analyzed the statutory text of 8 U.S.C. Section 1225(b)(2)(A) and determined that the phrase seeking admission requires an affirmative act to enter the United States. The court rejected the government’s argument that all applicants for admission are necessarily seeking admission, noting that Congress defined applicant for admission separately and that the government’s interpretation would render the word seeking superfluous. The court also considered the lack of an escape hatch for detention capacity in the statute and the government’s twenty-nine-year practice of applying the permissive detention scheme to these individuals. The court concluded that the mandatory detention scheme does not apply to noncitizens in the interior who did not attempt lawful entry.
We therefore find that an applicant for admission is not necessarily seeking admission.
Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft, 26a0139p.06 (6th Cir. May 11, 2026)
The dissent
What it means going forward
The ruling ensures that noncitizens detained in the interior who entered without inspection are entitled to bond hearings under the permissive detention statute rather than being held indefinitely under mandatory detention.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download