If a relative of yours is detained and you were told “there is no bond available,” this news matters to you. Nine federal appeals courts have now said that answer is, in many cases, wrong.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
En el bufete de abogados Campos, seguimos de cerca la evoluci\u00f3n de la pol\u00edtica de inmigraci\u00f3n de EE. UU. para proteger los derechos y el futuro de nuestros clientes. A continuaci\u00f3n te explicamos lo que se sabe, lo que a\u00fan no se sabe y qu\u00e9 puedes hacer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
El September 10, 2026<\/strong>, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held in Lopez Garcia v. Guadian<\/strong><\/em> that the government may not mandatorily detain, without a bond hearing, people who have been living in the United States and were not arrested trying to enter at the border.<\/p>\n\n\n\n La decisi\u00f3n fue 2-1<\/strong>. Judge Nicole Berner and Judge Barbara Milano Keenan wrote for the majority; Judge Allison Jones Rushing dissented. The cases arrived as habeas corpus<\/em> petitions filed by private counsel and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).<\/p>\n\n\n\n With this ruling, nine<\/strong> federal appeals courts have rejected the government’s reading and two<\/strong> have accepted it. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) maintains its position is correct, and the government has already asked the Supreme Court to review two of those losses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Everything turns on which section of the statute applies to your case, and the difference is enormous.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Since 2025, the government has argued that anyone who entered without inspection \u2014 even fifteen years ago \u2014 remains legally “an applicant for admission” and falls under the second section. Nine appeals courts have said no: when Congress intends a change of that magnitude, it says so plainly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A caution about the “nine to two” count:<\/strong> el Fifth Circuit<\/strong> vacated one of its panel opinions and scheduled a rehearing before the full court for 24 de septiembre de 2026<\/strong>. The map can shift at any time, and only the Supreme Court will settle it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n An appeals ruling binds only within its own circuit, so geography matters more than people realize.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That said, a favorable precedent does not apply itself<\/strong>. Someone has to invoke it: request the hearing before the Immigration Court and, where necessary, file a habeas corpus<\/em> petition in federal district court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is the part most often misread, and it deserves to be said plainly: winning the right to a hearing is not winning freedom<\/strong>. What the ruling secures is that an immigration judge hear your case individually<\/strong> and decide whether there is flight risk or danger to the community.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Concrete things matter at that hearing:<\/p>\n\n\n\n If a relative is detained, the urgent steps are to locate them<\/strong> (ICE runs a public detainee locator), confirm which section they are being held under, and consult an attorney before signing anything \u2014 including voluntary departure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When someone in your family is detained, every day counts and bad information costs weeks. Nine courts siding with immigrants means nothing if no one files the right request in the right forum.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At Campos Law Firm we check which section your relative is being detained under, which precedent governs in your circuit, and what evidence a bond hearing requires. We do not make unrealistic promises. We provide serious legal representation backed by preparation and integrity.<\/p>\n\n\n\nWhy can’t the courts agree?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Does this ruling protect you where you live?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
A bond hearing is not automatic release<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Protege tu situaci\u00f3n migratoria con el bufete de abogados Campos<\/h2>\n\n\n\n