A divided 6th Circuit panel ruled ICE mandatory detention without bond hearings violates federal law and the Constitution, deepening a five-circuit split.
A divided 6th Circuit panel ruled May 11 that the Trump administration's policy of holding all ICE detainees in mandatory custody without bond hearings violates both the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Constitution [1]. The 2-1 decision holds that detained immigrants must have a forum to argue for their release [2]. The ruling takes immediate effect across Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee [1].
The case, *Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft*, was decided by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, sitting in Cincinnati [1]. Judge Eric Clay authored the majority opinion, with Judge Guy Cole Jr. joining [3]. Judge Eric Murphy dissented [3]. The ACLU of Michigan was among the organizations that litigated the challenge to the policy [2].
The ruling sharpens an existing circuit conflict that now spans five circuits. The 2nd and 11th Circuits have similarly rejected the mandatory detention policy; the 5th and 8th Circuits have upheld it [1]. A split of this breadth, touching core questions of statutory construction under the INA and constitutional due process, substantially increases the probability of Supreme Court review [1]. The decision also has immediate practical consequences: thousands of individuals currently held in the four-state circuit without bond access now become entitled to individual hearings before immigration judges [2]. Whether those judges comply uniformly in the near term presents a distinct enforcement question [2].
The government retains the option to seek an en banc rehearing before the full 6th Circuit or to petition the Supreme Court for certiorari [3]. Given the administration's broader enforcement posture on immigration detention, a petition to the high court is widely anticipated [1]. Immigration advocates and government attorneys alike will monitor whether district courts and immigration courts within the circuit implement the ruling promptly, and any defiance or delay is likely to generate follow-on contempt or mandamus proceedings [2].