A Sheboygan Falls woman is poised to test a new federal ruling reopening the door for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainees to seek release on bond, after an Ohio-based federal appeals court ruled Monday against the Trump administration policy requiring mandatory detention for most ICE detainees. This ruling opens a critical window for practitioners representing detained clients in multiple jurisdictions.
What changed
In July 2025, ICE Director Todd Lyons issued a new interpretation subjecting anyone in deportation proceedings to mandatory detention without the possibility of bond, and the Board of Immigration Appeals signed off on the interpretation in September. That blanket policy has now fractured under judicial challenge.
The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the mandatory detention policy, with the court finding that detainees “should have a forum to explain that their backgrounds and connections to their communities justify release on bond while they undergo their removal proceedings,” and that denying bond hearings amounts to a violation of their due process rights.
Federal appellate courts are split: the New York-based 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and the Georgia-based 11th Circuit Court of Appeals have ruled against the mandatory detention policy, whereas the Louisiana-based 5th Circuit and the Missouri-based 8th Circuit have sided with the Trump administration. Critically for Wisconsin practitioners, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Illinois and with jurisdiction over Wisconsin, remains divided.
Why it matters
The ruling creates two immediate impacts on your practice:
Bond motion filing: Wisconsin immigration attorneys have scrambled to file bond motions for their clients detained in Ohio, Michigan and Kentucky — all under the 6th Circuit. If your client is detained in any 6th Circuit jurisdiction, you now have a clear appellate endorsement to pursue bond relief that previously did not exist.
Habeas corpus strategy: With bond off the table in other circuits, thousands of immigrants in ICE custody have turned to habeas corpus petitions, filed in federal district courts — administered separately from the federal immigration court system — to challenge their detention, with federal district courts receiving tens of thousands of habeas petitions in the past year, including more than 70 in Wisconsin’s Western and Eastern District Courts combined. Even in the 7th Circuit (which covers Wisconsin), habeas corpus remains a viable avenue while circuit splits persist.
Circuit splits create uncertainty: More than 400 federal district court judges have ruled against the White House’s position, while roughly 50 have backed the new policy. You must research the specific judge and district handling your client’s case, as outcomes remain unpredictable outside the 2nd, 6th, and 11th Circuits.
Way forward
-
Audit your ICE caseload: If you represent any detained clients in the 6th Circuit (Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee), file bond motions immediately. The appellate precedent is now on your side.
-
Check the home circuit: For Wisconsin clients (7th Circuit), research whether your district judge has ruled on mandatory detention. The 7th remains divided; habeas corpus petitions remain viable.
-
File habeas corpus petitions in district court: If immigration court bond relief is blocked, file a habeas corpus petition in the relevant federal district court. Reference the 6th Circuit decision as persuasive authority, even outside that circuit.
-
Verify the source and stay updated: Circuit decisions continue to shift. Confirm the current status of your home circuit before advising a client on detention relief options.
Disclaimer
This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Fola is a software company, not a law firm. You should consult with a licensed immigration attorney licensed in your jurisdiction to discuss your specific situation and options. Immigration policy and court precedent can change without notice. Always verify the information in this article against the primary source linked above and the current precedent in your applicable circuit before relying on it in client counseling or litigation.