A federal appeals court has dealt a major blow to the government’s recent efforts to expand mandatory immigration detention, ruling Monday that noncitizens living in the U.S. after an illegal entry are entitled to bond hearings.
The decision by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirms several lower court rulings from Michigan. It centers on a group of petitioners—many of whom have lived in the U.S. for decades and have American-born children—who were abruptly detained by federal agents in 2025 without the possibility of release.
A Battle Over Two Words: “Seeking Admission”
The legal tug-of-law focused on whether people already living deep within the U.S. interior should be treated the same as new arrivals at the border.
Under federal law, “applicants for admission” who are “seeking admission” must be detained until their cases are resolved. The government argued that because the law labels anyone who entered illegally as an “applicant for admission,” they are technically “seeking admission” every day they remain in the country.
READ :Clawing Back At Cruelty: Florida’s New Laws Target Animal Abusers And Shady Pet Sellers
The court rejected that “legal fiction.” Writing for the majority, Circuit Judge Eric L. Clay noted that the word “seeking” requires an affirmative act.
“Noncitizens 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’ and are thus not subject to mandatory detention,” the court wrote.
Victory for Long-Term Residents
The ruling is a significant victory for the ACLU, which represented the petitioners. The court highlighted the human element of the case, noting that the individuals involved were not flight risks or dangers to the community, but rather “primary breadwinners” and “essential caregivers” with deep local roots.
By moving these cases into a different legal category, the court ensured that long-term residents can at least ask an immigration judge for bond while their deportation cases proceed, rather than languishing in jail for months or years.
The Dissent: A “Perverse Incentive”
The ruling was not unanimous. Circuit Judge Raymond Kethledge Murphy issued a sharp 37-page dissent, arguing that Congress intended to close a loophole that historically gave more rights to those who snuck into the country than to those who followed the rules at a legal port of entry.
Murphy argued that by evading the law, the petitioners are effectively “seeking” to stay, and should be subject to the same mandatory detention as anyone else without legal status. He warned the majority’s view would create a “perverse incentive to enter at an unlawful rather than a lawful location.”
Constitutional Protections
Beyond the technical wording of the statute, the court also ruled on constitutional grounds. It held that because these individuals have “passed through our gates,” they are protected by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
“Freedom from imprisonment… lies at the heart of the liberty that the Due Process Clause protects,” the court stated, affirming that the government cannot bypass individualized hearings just because of a person’s immigration status.
The government has already released the petitioners involved in this specific appeal following the initial district court orders, but this Sixth Circuit ruling now sets a binding precedent for similar cases across Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee.
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox
