A federal appeals panel for the Sixth Circuit ruled Monday that people detained in Michigan after entering the U.S. without inspection must be allowed to ask an immigration judge for bond, delivering a significant win for advocates and a setback for the government’s detention push. The 2-1 decision focuses on long-term residents with deep family and work ties and draws a sharp line between mandatory detention at the border and discretionary detention once someone is already living inside the country.
Ruling hinges on what it means to be “seeking admission”
Writing for the majority, U.S. Circuit Judge Eric L. Clay, joined by Senior Judge R. Guy Cole, concluded that the statutory phrase “seeking admission” requires a clear, affirmative act. Because of that, the court said the label does not apply to people who entered without inspection and never tried to come in lawfully, which places them under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), the provision that allows bond hearings. Treating people who have been living in the interior as perpetually “seeking admission” would open the door to mandatory, potentially indefinite detention without individualized review, a result the panel rejected, according to Courthouse News Service.
Advocates framed the fight as a due-process question
The American Civil Liberties Union, representing most of the petitioners, had urged the Sixth Circuit to read the immigration statutes so that long-term residents arrested in the interior can at least ask for bond instead of being held without any review. In a detailed appellate brief, the ACLU argued that stretching “seeking admission” to cover people who have lived in the U.S. for years conflicts with both the text of the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Fifth Amendment’s protections, points the group laid out at length in its filings.
The government position and the lone dissent
Judge Eric Murphy dissented, warning that Congress in 1996 intended to close what it saw as a loophole that had allowed people who entered unlawfully to receive more favorable treatment than those who showed up at a port of entry. The ruling also comes in the wake of a July 2025 ICE memo directing officers to treat many interior, non-inspected residents as “applicants for admission,” effectively placing them into the stricter detention category. The split on the panel reflects broader disagreement among appeals courts over that approach, as Bloomberg Law reported.
Immediate impact in Michigan and across the Sixth Circuit
The panel affirmed several lower court rulings from Michigan and made clear that similarly situated people across the Sixth Circuit, which includes Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee, should be able to ask an immigration judge for bond. The government had already released the petitioners in this appeal after the district court orders. Local reporting has noted that many of those freed are long-term community members, breadwinners, and caregivers, according to Tampa Free Press and other court coverage.
What comes next
The ruling adds new fuel to a growing circuit split over whether interior detainees arrested on I-200 warrants are eligible for bond, a divide that makes further appeals likely and raises the prospect of an en banc rehearing or even Supreme Court review. Courts in the region have already issued a series of related habeas decisions and filings spelling out the statutory dispute, as shown in recent dockets compiled on public sites like Justia. For detainees and their families, the practical effect is immediate: the decision opens the door to individualized hearings, where judges can weigh danger and flight risk before deciding whether continued detention is justified.
