6th Circuit Voids Trump's Detention Policy in 2-1 Ruling as Bond Hearings Return
Updated
Updated · Michigan Public · May 11
6th Circuit Voids Trump's Detention Policy in 2-1 Ruling as Bond Hearings Return
6 articles · Updated · Michigan Public · May 11
A 2-1 Sixth Circuit panel ruled Monday that the Trump administration cannot keep immigrants detained throughout their cases without a chance to seek bond, calling the policy unconstitutional.
The majority said mandatory detention of long-term law-abiding residents without due process broke with decades of bond-hearing precedent in immigration cases.
The decision covers Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee, and the Michigan ACLU said it could affect thousands of detained non-citizens across the four states.
One underlying case involved Juan Manuel Lopez-Campos, a 46-year-old Mexican father of five U.S. citizen children who was freed after nearly two months in detention following a minor traffic stop.
More than 800 habeas petitions had been filed in Michigan by mid-February, and with federal appeals courts now split 2-2 on the policy, the Supreme Court is likely to decide its fate.
How will the Supreme Court resolve the deep legal conflict over denying bond hearings to detained immigrants?
When does a border enforcement law become unconstitutional if applied to long-term residents inside the U.S.?
Does granting bond hearings address the systemic issues of health and safety within immigration detention centers?
6th Circuit Restores Bond Hearings for Thousands: Trump’s Mandatory Detention Policy Faces Supreme Court Showdown
Overview
On May 11, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit issued a major ruling that restored bond hearings for thousands of noncitizens detained in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. This decision upheld a lower court’s order and found that noncitizens who entered the U.S. without inspection but have lived here for years should not face mandatory detention. Instead, they must be given the right to a bond hearing under permissive detention rules. The ruling directly challenges the Trump administration’s stricter detention policy, marking a significant shift toward protecting due process rights for immigrants.