Filed Date: Sept. 15, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This is one of several lawsuits in which a federal court of appeals has ruled on the constitutionality of detention without a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A).
This lawsuit ultimately became a consolidated appeal from four separate petitions for writs of habeas corpus filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan and the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan. [The four lawsuits, and habeas decision on appeal, are: Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft, No. 2:25-cv-12486, 797 F. Supp.3d 771 (E.D. Mich. 2025); Sanchez Alvarez v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-01090, 807 F. Supp.3d 777 (W.D. Mich. 2025); Contreras-Cervantes v. Raycraft, No. 2:25-cv-13073, 2025 WL 2952796 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 17, 2025); Pizarro Reyes v. Raycraft, No. 2:25-cv-12546, 2025 WL 2609425 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 9, 2025).] In each of the underlying lawsuits, the district courts granted the petitioners' habeas petitions, finding that the petitioners -- all noncitizens without lawful status, detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) -- were unlawfully detained and that their detention without a bond hearing violated their Fifth Amendment due process rights. After these decisions issued, the government released each petitioner without holding a bond hearing, except one, who had been released prior to the district court decision in his case.
On consolidated appeal, in a decision issued on May 11, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district courts' judgments.
The appellate court first explained the statutory scheme at issue. Under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”), two statutory schemes govern detention of a noncitizen pending removal proceedings. 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) mandates detention during the pendency of removal proceedings for a noncitizen seeking admission if the examining immigration officer determines that the nonzitizen "is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted," subject to narrow exceptions inapplicable in this case. By contrast, 8 U.S.C. § 1226 applies to noncitizens arrested and detained pending a removal decision, and offers a mechanism for release on bond or conditional parole unless the noncitizen is inadmissible under particular statutory provisions or falls into one of several enumerated categories involving criminal offenses and terrorist activities. At issue in this appeal was which scheme applied to a noncitizen detained within the interior of the United States who never affirmatively applied for admission.
Ultimately, the court determined that § 1225(b)(2)(A)'s mandatory detention scheme did not apply to noncitizens like the petitioners here. It reasoned, first, that "[n]oncitizens like Petitioners, who did not attempt lawful entry into the United States and are actively avoiding being inspected for lawful entry, are not 'seeking admission'" within the meaning of the statute. It noted, in addition, that the government's broad interpretation of the mandatory detention provision's applicability would have created a "logistical nightmare," and that nothing in the statute suggests that Congress understood such broad application (and, therefore, did nothing to address it). Finally, it cited "the government’s previously unbroken 29-year streak of applying § 1226(a) as opposed to § 1225(b)(2)(A) to noncitizens like Petitioners" as "consequential" and "powerful evidence" supporting a more narrow interpretation of the provision. Thus, because petitioners were not alleged to be seeking admission or lawful entry into the United States, § 1225(b)(2)(A)’s mandatory detention scheme did not apply to them, and they could have been detained pursuant only to § 1226. Therefore, the court affirmed the district courts' conclusions that petitioners’ detentions under § 1225(b)(2)(A) was unlawful.
Turning next to the Fifth Amendment Due Process claims, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district courts' decisions that petitioners were due individualized bond hearins in light of the significant time they had each spent in the United States, and that their detention without bond under § 1226(a) was a deprivation of liberty that violated their due process rights. The court explained:
"Petitioners are more than just names on a pleading. Petitioners have lived in the United States for years or decades. Some . . . own property or work for locally owned businesses. Others . . . have worked with law enforcement to facilitate criminal prosecutions. All appear to contribute to their neighborhoods and local communities. Many are the primary breadwinners or essential caregivers for their families, which include their children who were born here and are citizens of the United States. Though the government has now released Petitioners from detention, our understanding of § 1225(b)(2)(A)’s scope ensures that noncitizens like Petitioners should have a forum to explain that their backgrounds and connections to their communities justify release on bond while they undergo their removal proceedings. To hold otherwise would subject long-term lawabiding residents in the United States, such as Petitioners, to the hardship of mandatory detention without due process."
It therefore affirmed the district courts' judgments granting habeas relief.
Summary Authors
Clearinghouse (5/12/2026)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71082189/parties/lopez-campos-v-immigration-and-customs-enforcement-acting-director-of/
Abrutyn, Russell R. (Michigan)
Atiya, Shahad Jawad (Michigan)
Aukerman, Miriam J. (Michigan)
Berger, Marty (Michigan)
Gorod, Brianne Jenna (Michigan)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71082189/lopez-campos-v-immigration-and-customs-enforcement-acting-director-of/
Last updated May 12, 2026, 12:45 p.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: Sept. 15, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Noncitizens detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A).
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
Executive Office of Immigration Review
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Habeas Corpus, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241-2253; 2254; 2255
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Other Dockets:
Western District of Michigan 1:25-cv-01090
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 25-1965
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 25-01969
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 25-01978
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 25-01982
Eastern District of Michigan 2:25-cv-12486
Eastern District of Michigan 2:25-cv-13073
Eastern District of Michigan 2:25-cv-12546
Special Case Type(s):
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Release from detention/imprisonment
Issues
Immigration/Border:
Case Summary of Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/48172/ (last updated 5/12/2026).