6th Cir.

Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft

May 11, 2026 ·25-1965 ·Published ·Clay · By James Taylor

The Sixth Circuit affirmed district court judgments granting habeas corpus petitions filed by noncitizens detained in the interior of the United States. The court held that the mandatory detention scheme under Section twelve hundred twenty-five, subsection B, paragraph two, subparagraph A does not apply to noncitizens who did not affirmatively seek admission.

Listen to this decision 0:00 / --:--

Background

Petitioners are noncitizens without lawful status who were detained pursuant to the mandatory detention scheme of Section twelve hundred twenty-five, subsection B, paragraph two, subparagraph A. They filed petitions for writs of habeas corpus, arguing that the government unlawfully detained them without a bond hearing and that their detention violated their Fifth Amendment due process rights. The district courts granted the petitions, finding that Section twelve hundred twenty-six governed their detention and that the failure to provide a bond hearing violated due process. The government appealed.

The court’s reasoning

The court analyzed the statutory text of Section twelve hundred twenty-five, subsection B, paragraph two, subparagraph A, focusing on the phrase seeking admission. The court determined that seeking admission requires an affirmative act or attempt towards lawful entry, distinguishing it from the defined term applicant for admission. The court noted that Congress could have easily drafted the statute to extend mandatory detention to all applicants for admission but chose not to do so. The court also considered the canon against surplusage, the lack of an escape hatch for detention capacity in Section twelve hundred twenty-five, subsection B, paragraph two, subparagraph A compared to other parts of the statute, and the government’s longstanding practice of applying Section twelve hundred twenty-six to noncitizens like the petitioners. The court concluded that the petitioners were not seeking admission and thus were not subject to mandatory detention.

We therefore find that an applicant for admission is not necessarily seeking admission.

Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft, 26a0139p.06 (6th Cir. 2026)

The dissent

What it means going forward

The ruling ensures that noncitizens detained in the interior of the United States who did not affirmatively seek admission are entitled to bond hearings under Section twelve hundred twenty-six rather than mandatory detention without review.

Play