Sixth Circuit Strikes Down Trump's Mandatory Detention Policy: What the Ruling Means for Detained Immigrants in Massachusetts

What Happened

On Monday, May 11, 2026, a divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the Trump administration's mandatory immigration detention policy violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. By a 2 to 1 vote, the panel ruled that most detained noncitizens in deportation proceedings within the Sixth Circuit must be offered a bond hearing before an immigration judge. The decision was issued in Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft, a consolidation of four cases brought by detained immigrants in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee.

The Sixth Circuit became the third federal appeals court to reject the July 2025 Department of Homeland Security memorandum that reinterpreted the federal immigration detention statute. The Second Circuit and the Ninth Circuit reached the same conclusion earlier this year. With Monday's ruling, the circuit split is deeper than ever, and the question is now almost certain to reach the Supreme Court of the United States in the coming term.

For families in Massachusetts with a loved one in ICE detention, the Sixth Circuit ruling is welcome news, but it is also a moment to understand exactly what the ruling does and does not change here. Massachusetts is in the First Circuit, not the Sixth. The First Circuit heard oral argument on the same legal question in Boston in early May 2026, and the panel showed deep skepticism of the government's position. The ruling we are waiting for in New England has not yet issued. Until it does, the right strategy for a detained loved one in Plymouth, Strafford County, or Wyatt Detention Facility depends on careful coordination between immigration court bond practice and federal habeas litigation.

The Background: How We Got Here

The dispute traces back to a July 2025 memorandum issued by the Department of Homeland Security. In that memo, the agency reinterpreted Section 235 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to treat almost every undocumented immigrant in the country as a person "seeking admission" to the United States. Under that reading, mandatory detention applies, and an immigration judge has no authority to set bond. The person remains detained from the moment of arrest through the entire removal case unless a federal court intervenes.

That reinterpretation overturned decades of practice. Before July 2025, immigration judges routinely held bond hearings for noncitizens in deportation proceedings who were not subject to specific mandatory detention provisions in the statute. Long-term residents, parents of United States citizen children, asylum seekers, and individuals with strong equities could secure release while their cases progressed. After July 2025, immigration judges across the country were told they could no longer set bond for this broad class of detainees. Detention became the default and the only option.

Within months, federal lawsuits were filed in nearly every circuit. A federal judge in Massachusetts ruled in December 2025 that the policy unlawfully denied bond hearings to immigrants detained in New England. The Second Circuit affirmed a similar district court order earlier in 2026. The Ninth Circuit reached the same result. On May 4, 2026, the First Circuit heard oral argument in Boston, and on May 11, 2026, the Sixth Circuit issued its decision in Lopez-Campos.

What the Sixth Circuit Actually Said

The majority opinion was written by Judge R. Guy Cole Jr. and joined by Judge Eric L. Clay. Judge Eric E. Murphy dissented. The majority found two independent grounds for striking down the mandatory detention policy.

First, the policy violates the Constitution. The court held that the government cannot "subject long-term law-abiding residents of the United States to the hardship of mandatory detention without due process." The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the majority explained, requires an individualized inquiry into whether a person poses a flight risk or a danger to the community before that person can be held in civil detention for months or years. Mandatory detention without that inquiry is unconstitutional.

Second, the policy departs from settled statutory law. The majority found that the July 2025 reinterpretation upended decades of precedent for bond hearings in immigration cases. Congress wrote specific mandatory detention categories into the statute, and the agency cannot rewrite that scheme by administrative memo to sweep almost the entire undocumented population into mandatory detention.

The dissent argued that the executive branch retains broad authority over immigration enforcement and that the July 2025 interpretation was a permissible reading of the statute. The dissent did not carry the day, but it foreshadows the arguments the government will press at the Supreme Court.

Why Massachusetts Cases Are in a Different Posture

Massachusetts sits within the First Circuit, which covers Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Puerto Rico. The Sixth Circuit ruling is binding only in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. An immigration judge in Boston Immigration Court is not required to follow Lopez-Campos.

What an immigration judge in Boston is required to follow is the December 2025 federal district court ruling from Massachusetts that held the same July 2025 policy unlawful in New England. That ruling has been the legal anchor for habeas corpus petitions filed by detained immigrants in our region throughout 2026. The First Circuit has not yet ruled on the government's appeal of that decision. The First Circuit panel that heard oral argument in early May 2026 included Judge Sandra Lynch and Judge Lara Montecalvo, both of whom pressed the government repeatedly on its interpretation of the word "admission" in the statute. The questioning suggested the panel was skeptical of the government's position.

The Sixth Circuit decision adds weight to that pending appeal in three ways. It deepens the circuit split, which strengthens the case for a clear ruling. It provides additional reasoning the First Circuit can draw on. And it signals to immigration judges that the legal ground under the July 2025 policy is eroding quickly.

What Detained Immigrants and Their Families Should Do Now

In the past several days, my office has fielded calls from family members in Framingham, Marlborough, Everett, Malden, Lowell, Milford, Brockton, Mattapan, Randolph, and Stoughton. The conversations have a common thread. A loved one was arrested at an ICE check-in, at a courthouse, or at home. The immigration judge said there could be no bond hearing because of the July 2025 policy. The family is desperate. Here is what I am advising those families.

Identify the facility and the alien number. Every step that follows requires this information. If you do not know where your loved one is held, use the ICE online detainee locator with the person's full name, date of birth, and country of birth. Once you have the alien registration number (A number), share it with your attorney immediately.

Retain experienced removal defense counsel right away. Bond practice in this environment is technical. Counsel must know how to ask the immigration judge for a bond hearing despite the July 2025 policy, how to preserve constitutional and statutory objections for appeal, and how to pivot to federal habeas corpus practice in the District of Massachusetts when the immigration judge denies bond.

Request a bond hearing in immigration court. Even though immigration judges in our region have been instructed to follow the July 2025 policy, the request must be made on the record. Without that request, there is nothing to appeal. The request also preserves arguments tied to the Massachusetts district court ruling that the policy is unlawful in New England.

File a habeas corpus petition in federal court if bond is denied. Habeas litigation in the District of Massachusetts has been the most effective path to release for many detainees in our region during 2026. A well-drafted petition cites the December 2025 district court ruling, the pending First Circuit appeal, the Second Circuit decision, the Ninth Circuit decision, and now the Sixth Circuit decision in Lopez-Campos. The argument is straightforward. Three federal circuits have struck this policy down. A federal district court in Massachusetts has struck it down. The detention is unconstitutional, and the person must be released.

Prepare a strong bond packet. A bond hearing, when one is finally held, turns on two questions. Is the person a flight risk? Is the person a danger to the community? Strong packets include sponsor letters from family members with lawful status, proof of long-term residence and community ties, evidence of steady employment, school enrollment records for children, evidence of medical or mental health needs that detention is aggravating, and a clear plan for compliance with future hearings. In my practice, I see strong bond packets reverse weak initial impressions, including in difficult cases.

Do not give up because of voluntary departure pressure. One of the most painful trends I have seen this year is detained clients accepting voluntary departure or signing stipulated removal orders simply because the detention is unbearable. With the legal landscape now shifting, that decision deserves careful reconsideration. Talk to counsel before signing anything. Once a removal order is in place, reopening the case is much harder than securing release at the front end.

What Comes Next at the Supreme Court

The circuit split is now too deep to ignore. The Second, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits have struck down the July 2025 policy. Other circuits, including the Eleventh, have not yet ruled. The First Circuit is expected to issue its decision within the next several weeks. Whatever direction that ruling goes, the Supreme Court will almost certainly take the question up.

What that means in practice for Massachusetts families is that the window between now and the Supreme Court's eventual decision is a critical period for individual case strategy. A favorable First Circuit ruling could deliver immediate relief to detained immigrants in our region for the months it takes the Supreme Court to act. A habeas petition in the District of Massachusetts may produce release in days. Strategic patience and strategic urgency are both required, and the right balance depends on the specifics of the case.

How This Connects to Other Recent News

The Sixth Circuit ruling lands during a particularly difficult month for detained immigrants. On May 5, 2026, the Department of Homeland Security closed the Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman, the federal watchdog office that had been responsible for investigating abuse and medical neglect in immigration detention facilities. Reporting from NPR and other outlets indicates that 18 people have died in ICE detention so far in 2026. In that context, every successful bond release matters more.

For background on the underlying bond hearing process and what to expect, see my earlier post on Understanding Bond Hearings in Immigration Court. For families navigating the early hours after a loved one is taken into ICE custody, see ICE Detainers Explained: What to Do When a Loved One Is Held. For broader context on how the July 2025 policy has changed practice in our region, see Rights of Detained Immigrants in ICE Detention.

Frequently Asked Questions