Blog

Legal Update: The Sixth Circuit Restores Bond Hearings, and Where Things Stand Across the Country

May 11, 2026

Legal Update: The Sixth Circuit Restores Bond Hearings, and Where Things Stand Across the Country

Another federal appeals court ruling in favor of detained immigrants, and a clearer picture of where each region of the country now stands.

By Angelica Pichardo | Law Office of Angelica Pichardo

Another piece of good news. On May 11, 2026, just five days after the Eleventh Circuit's decision in Hernandez Alvarez, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued its own ruling in a case called Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft. The court ruled that many people who came into the United States without going through an immigration officer at the border cannot be held without a bond hearing in immigration court. The Sixth Circuit joined the Second and Eleventh Circuits in pushing back against the policy that had taken away many families' usual path to a bond hearing in immigration court, forcing them instead to file a habeas petition in federal court just to get a chance at release.

If you read my last post, you already know how big this kind of ruling is. Each new circuit that joins the favorable column means more families freed from indefinite detention, more parents back home with their children, and more pressure on the courts that have ruled the other way.

What the Sixth Circuit decided

The Sixth Circuit case involved 11 different people, mostly Mexican nationals, who had been living in the United States for years. Many of them are parents to U.S. citizen children. Some own property. Some work for locally owned businesses. One had even worked with law enforcement to help prosecute crimes. None of them had any meaningful criminal history. They had simply been picked up by ICE and held without any chance to ask an immigration judge for bond.

The Sixth Circuit said this practice was wrong on two separate grounds.

First, the court agreed with the Second and Eleventh Circuits that the law the government had been using to justify no-bond detention was meant for people trying to come into the country at the border. It was not meant for people who already live here, who have been settled into their communities for years, and who happen to get picked up by immigration agents one day. The court looked closely at the word "seeking" in the statute and concluded, in plain English, that "seeking admission" means actually trying to come in. Not standing still in your own home.

Second, the court found that holding these families for months without any chance to ask a judge for bond also violates the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution promises every person in this country, citizen or not, what is called "due process." In plain words, that means the government cannot take away your freedom without giving you a fair procedure first. The court said that locking someone up indefinitely, without ever giving them a chance to stand in front of a judge and ask to be released, is not a fair procedure. This second basis stands on its own. Even if the first ruling about the wording of the statute were ever overturned, the due process ruling alone would still mean these families are entitled to a bond hearing.

The decision was issued by two of the three judges on the panel, with one judge writing a dissent. It is published, and it takes effect immediately for federal courts in the Sixth Circuit.

Where things stand across the country

Whether someone detained for coming into the country without going through inspection at the border can ask for a bond hearing in immigration court now depends on where in the country they are being held. The rules are different in different parts of the country. Here is where each region currently stands.

Favorable: bond hearings have been restored

In these states, many people in this situation can once again go directly to an immigration judge and ask for bond, the same way these cases were handled for decades.

Restrictive: the government's position is still in place

In these states, the courts have so far sided with the government, and people in this situation often must turn to federal habeas petitions to ask a federal judge for release.

Complicated: a mixed picture

The Seventh Circuit's decision was a split, with different judges reasoning in different directions. The practical effect is limited and case-specific.

Pending: no circuit ruling yet

In these regions, the question is still being litigated in federal district courts, and the appeals courts have not yet weighed in. Each new ruling may shape the law in that region.

What this means in Florida (and Georgia and Alabama)

Florida is still firmly in the favorable column. The Eleventh Circuit's Hernandez Alvarez decision from May 6 remains the law here. If your loved one is detained in Florida (or Georgia or Alabama) for coming into the country without going through inspection at the border, they may now be able to go directly to an immigration judge for a bond hearing, without first having to file a habeas petition in federal court. My earlier post walks through what families need to know, including what the immigration judge will look at (danger to the community and flight risk) and what documents to start gathering.

The Sixth Circuit's decision is also good news for our Florida families in a quieter but important way. The more circuits that line up against the government's position, the more pressure on the Supreme Court to step in and resolve the issue once and for all. And the more circuits that rule favorably, the harder it becomes for the government to argue that the favorable rulings are outliers. Today's decision adds Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee to a growing list. Three circuits saying the same thing is harder to dismiss than one.

A note on what is still uncertain

A few cautions are worth saying out loud.

The federal government may seek further review of Lopez-Campos, either by asking the full Sixth Circuit to rehear the case or by going to the Supreme Court. Until the Supreme Court rules, the law in each region is set by that region's appeals court, which means the patchwork above is the current state of things.

Bond eligibility also depends on more than just how someone entered the country. People with certain serious criminal records, people who already have deportation orders against them, and people in expedited removal posture face different rules. Each case has to be evaluated on its own facts.

And finally, the Hernandez Alvarez and Lopez-Campos decisions resolve the statutory and constitutional question of whether the no-bond rule can apply to long-term residents at all. They do not decide whether any particular person is a flight risk or a danger to the community. Those questions are still answered by the immigration judge at the bond hearing itself.

A bigger picture

This is the second favorable circuit court decision in less than a week, and the third overall. The Second Circuit ruled the same way only weeks before. The federal courts of appeals are pushing back, one by one, against the practice of holding long-term residents of this country without any chance at bond.

The vast majority of those detained are hardworking, dignified people who deserve to be reunited with their communities and their families. The legal landscape is changing fast, and it is changing in the right direction.

About the author: Angelica Pichardo is an immigration attorney and the founder of the Law Office of Angelica Pichardo. Visit her firm's website here. Office Tel: (813) 365-7015.

This blog post is for general information only. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Immigration law is changing rapidly, and every case is different. Please speak with a licensed attorney about your specific situation.

← Back to all posts