Juan Lopez-Campos v. Kevin Raycraft -Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit
Split Score
What is a Split Score?
This score (0-100) indicates how likely this case is to be reviewed by the Supreme Court based on:
Case Summary
Disposition
Affirmed
The Sixth Circuit affirmed district-court habeas grants to several non-citizens who were arrested in Michigan after living in the United States without lawful status. The court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A)’s mandatory-detention provision applies only to non-citizens actively seeking admission at the border, not to those already present in the country; therefore the petitioners should have been processed under § 1226 and given bond hearings. The majority also found that detaining them without such hearings violated the Fifth Amendment, while a dissent argued the opposite and highlighted a growing circuit split.
Circuit Split Identified
Legal Issue
Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A)'s mandatory-detention scheme applies to non-citizens found in the U.S. interior who entered without inspection, or only to applicants stopped at the border, thereby placing such interior detainees instead under the discretionary bond framework of 8 U.S.C. § 1226.
Circuit Positions
§ 1225(b)(2)(A) does NOT govern interior undocumented aliens; they are detained under § 1226 with possible bond hearings.
§ 1225(b)(2)(A) DOES apply to interior undocumented aliens, requiring mandatory detention without bond.
Conflict Summary
The Second, Sixth, Eleventh Circuits (and a concurring separate opinion in the Seventh) interpret § 1225(b)(2)(A) narrowly, holding that it does not reach non-citizens already inside the country; those individuals are subject to § 1226’s discretionary detention with the possibility of bond hearings. The Fifth and Eighth Circuits read the statute broadly, concluding that interior aliens deemed “applicants for admission” are ‘seeking admission’ and therefore must be held under § 1225(b)(2)(A) without bond hearings until removal proceedings conclude.