Justice Department copy of the petition

… 12 Sixth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits, have held that such aliens are not covered by Section 1225(b)(2)(A) but rather subject to discretionary detention under Section 1226(a) and entitled to bond hearings. See App., infra, 60a; Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft, 175 F.4th 713 (6th Cir. 2026), petition for cert. pending, No. 25-1415 (filed June 22, 2026); Santillan Quiroz v. Mullin, No. 26-6019, 2026 WL 1876709 (10th Cir. June 30, 2026); Hernandez Alvarez v. Warden, 175 F.4th 1258 (11th Cir. 2026).1 Lopez-Campos is a better vehicle than this case for resolving the lawfulness of applying Section 1225(b)(2)(A) to aliens who are present in the country without having been admitted. In addition to the statutory question presented in this case, Lopez-Campos also squarely presents the question whether applying Section 1225(b)(2)(A)’s mandatory-detention scheme to such aliens comports with due process. As the government explained in its petition in Lopez-Campos, aliens around the country have been challenging their detention under Section 1225(b)(2)(A) on both statutory and due-process grounds, so the Court should address both issues simultaneously to provide clarity to the lower courts. See Pet. at 32-34, 1 At the time the government filed its petition in Lopez-Campos, the Tenth Circuit had not yet decided the issue. Since that filing, the Tenth Circuit has joined the Second, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits in finding Section 1225(b)(2)(A) inapplicable to aliens present without admission. Santillan Quiroz, 2026 WL 1876709, at *17. In addition, since the government filed its petition in Lopez-Campos, it has filed a petition for hearing en banc in the Eleventh Circuit, asking for the court to vacate the panel decision in Hernandez Alvarez so that the government can at least be relieved of that court’s erroneous decision while the issue pends before this Court. See C.A. Pet. for Reh’g, Hernandez Alvarez, supra (No. 25-14075). That rehearing petition is still pending. …