Background
Petitioners are noncitizens from Mexico, El Salvador, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Guatemala who were arrested by ICE or Customs and Border Patrol agents. They were charged with entering the United States without inspection and detained under 8 U.S.C. section 1225(b)(2)(A). They filed petitions for writs of habeas corpus in the Eastern and Western Districts of Michigan, arguing the detention was unlawful and violated due process. The district courts granted the petitions, finding the government should have used 8 U.S.C. section 1226, which allows for bond hearings. The government appealed.
The court’s reasoning
The court applied de novo review to the statutory interpretation and due process claims. The court analyzed the text of 8 U.S.C. section 1225(b)(2)(A) and determined that the phrase seeking admission requires an affirmative act by the noncitizen. The court found that the petitioners, who were in the interior and had not attempted lawful entry, were not seeking admission. The court relied on dictionary definitions and the canon against surplusage to support this reading. The court also considered the government’s long-standing practice of using permissive detention for such individuals. The court concluded that section 1225(b)(2)(A) does not apply to the petitioners and that they should have been detained under section 1226, which permits bond hearings.
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 decision ensures that noncitizens detained in the interior who did not actively seek admission are entitled to bond hearings under 8 U.S.C. section 1226 rather than being held under mandatory detention without review.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download