6th Circuit rules immigrant detainees need bond hearings

Listen to this article

In Brief

• 6th circuit issues 2-1 ruling on bond hearings
• Judges R. Guy Cole Jr. and Eric L. Clay author majority opinion
• Judge Eric E. Murphy dissents, supporting government detention policy
• Ruling applies to Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee federal courts

A key federal appeals court agreed with lower judges in Michigan that most immigrants detained for possible deportation must have the chance to argue they deserve bond.

The 2-1 ruling, issued Monday, May 11, by a panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, is another blow to a Trump administration determined to break years of precedent and detain almost anyone it suspects is in the country without legal authorization.

However, given that other appellate courts across the country ruled in favor of the administration in similar cases, it’s likely the U.S. Supreme Court will make a final call on bond hearings for immigrants detained as part of civil deportation proceedings.

“We are delighted that our clients will be able to remain at home with their families where they belong,” said Miriam Aukerman, director of strategic litigation for the ACLU of Michigan, which represented immigrants in the case before the appellate court.

“The goal of the Trump administration’s cruel detention policy is to lock people up, break their spirits, and make them so desperate that they agree to leave their loved ones. The cruelty of this policy is no accident. Cruelty is the point.”

The Trump administration has defended its actions both in these cases and in others across the country, saying it has the right to enforce immigration laws and detain immigrants without bond in civil proceedings.

“The Immigration and Nationality Act requires the Executive to detain any ‘applicant for admission’ who cannot show he is ‘clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted,’“ the government wrote in a pleading filed earlier this year with the 6th Circuit.

“In petitioner’s view, ‘no good deed goes unpunished,’ … Those that actually commit the crime of illegal entry … are rewarded with access to bond hearings to which their law-abiding counterparts are denied. That is the exact perverse regime Congress sought to abolish.”

Why the court ruled against Trump

The heart of this case comes down to the interpretation of the law governing how and when people suspected of being in the country without authorization can be detained during pending immigration court proceedings.

For decades, the administration and advocates agreed that people who presented themselves at the border could be denied bond and detained while their immigration cases proceeded. But, if someone was already in the country when found, they were typically granted bond in their immigration cases.

That changed in 2025, when the Trump administration argued the law lets them deny immigrants a bond hearing in essentially every proceeding in immigration court.

Hundreds of immigrants in Michigan and elsewhere were denied even the chance at bond. Many filed federal lawsuits, and most won: A Detroit Free Press review of more than 100 of these cases that began in the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Michigan gives a window into what it has taken for immigrants to get a chance at freedom most courts agree they deserve. Of 120 concluded detainee cases reviewed by the Free Press from 2025, judges ruled 89 were unlawfully denied bond hearings.

Most had no criminal records.

Senior Appellate Judge R. Guy Cole, Jr. and Judge Eric L. Clay said in the Monday ruling those courts appropriately determined the people in these immigration proceedings, and others in similar situations, were unconstitutionally and illegally denied bond hearings.

“Petitioners are more than just names on a pleading. Petitioners have lived in the United States for years or decades. Some … own property or work for locally owned businesses … All appear to contribute to their neighborhoods and local communities. Many are the primary breadwinners or essential caregivers for their families, which include their children who were born here and are citizens of the United States,” Clay wrote in the majority opinion.

“Though the government has now released petitioners from detention, our understanding of [the law under review’s] scope ensures that noncitizens like petitioners should have a forum to explain that their backgrounds and connections to their communities justify release on bond while they undergo their removal proceedings. To hold otherwise would subject long-term law-abiding residents in the United States, such as petitioners, to the hardship of mandatory detention without due process.”

President Bill Clinton appointed both Cole and Clay.

Judge Eric E. Murphy, a Trump appointee, voted in favor of the government’s position and authored a dissent. He argued it’s clear the government has the right to detainee people without bond suspected of being in the country without authorization, and to make a distinction between detaining people as they arrive but not once they’re in the country creates a perverse incentive for immigrants to ignore the law.

What happens now?

The 6th Circuit ruling applies to all federal courts — and immigration courts — in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee. Two other federal appellate courts, the 2nd Circuit and 11th Circuit issued similar rulings, but the 5th Circuit and 8th Circuit sided with the Trump administration.

In such cases, where appellate courts disagree, the U.S. Supreme Court routinely takes up the case. It’s unclear whether and when it may make any ruling on the issue.

In the meantime, immigration court judges now must offer bond hearings as they did in the past. However, granting a hearing doesn’t actually mean the people involved will not be detained.

Historically, most people are denied bond in these hearings, even before the Trump administration’s latest detention push. A recent analysis by Michigan Public found even though many people who were initially denied bond did receive it after a federal judge interviewed, few received the minimum bond amount.

Immigration courts do not have a bail bond system similar to criminal courts: if a judge orders a $30,000 bond, the person must fund the full $30,000 to be released. Often, immigrants and their families struggle to come up with the money, resulting in detention even if bond is a theoretical option.