{"id":8331,"date":"2026-09-29T14:48:50","date_gmt":"2026-09-29T20:48:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/camposlawfirm.com\/"},"modified":"2026-09-29T14:48:50","modified_gmt":"2026-09-29T20:48:50","slug":"detention-without-bond-the-supreme-court-weighs-taking-up-ices-policy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/camposlawfirm.com\/es\/detention-without-bond-the-supreme-court-weighs-taking-up-ices-policy\/","title":{"rendered":"Detenci\u00f3n sin fianza: el Tribunal Supremo se plantea examinar la pol\u00edtica del ICE"},"content":{"rendered":"

At Campos Law Firm, we closely monitor developments in U.S. immigration policy to protect our clients’ rights and future. As its new term begins, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether to review<\/strong> the policy that keeps thousands of immigrants arrested inside the country locked up with no chance to ask for bond, including people who have lived here for many years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To be clear: as of Tuesday, September 29, 2026, the Court had not agreed to hear the case or ruled on the merits. Here is what we know, what we do not, and what you can do.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00bfQu\u00e9 est\u00e1 pasando?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

For decades, most people who entered without inspection and were arrested far from the border could ask an immigration judge for a bond hearing under Section 236(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). In September 2025, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) adopted the government’s position in Caso de Yajure Hurtado<\/em>: those people are “applicants for admission” subject to detenci\u00f3n obligatoria<\/strong> under Section 235(b)(2)(A).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In practice, the immigration judge can no longer set bond, even for someone who has been here 10 or 20 years with no criminal record. According to The Marshall Project, more than 500 federal judges have ruled against the government in roughly 20,000 such cases over the past year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What have the courts said?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The split is stark. According to an analysis by the Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC), nine of the eleven appeals courts<\/strong> that have ruled rejected the government’s reading: the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits. Only the Fifth and Eighth Circuits sided with the government.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That leaves an uneven map. In Colorado and Utah, where the Tenth Circuit ruled in Quiroz contra Mullin<\/em> on June 30, 2026, the general rule is still a bond hearing. In Texas, Louisiana, or Mississippi, under the Fifth Circuit, it is not. Texas immigration attorney Kemal Hepsen told Reuters the alternative is “a country where whether you can get bond depends on which state ICE drives you to.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At least three petitions are pending, according to CLINIC: two filed by the government (Raycraft v. Lopez-Campos<\/em> y Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha<\/em>) and one by a detained immigrant (Buenrostro-Mendez v. Blanche<\/em>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What happens if the Court takes the case?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

If the Court grants review, it will hear arguments, and a case accepted in the fall is usually decided before the term ends in late June. Until then, each circuit’s rulings remain in effect<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A ruling for the government could extend no-bond detention nationwide. A ruling against it would confirm that most long-time residents are entitled to have a judge decide whether they pose a flight risk or a danger to the community.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This should not be confused with a separate case the Court agreed to hear in June, according to CNN, on whether people held for months must get a bond hearing. They are different questions: one is about who falls into mandatory detention; the other is about how long it can last.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00bfQu\u00e9 puedes hacer ahora?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n