Kevin Jose Rodriguez Portillo, a 31-year-old Venezuelan citizen who has been present in the United States since January 2022, was detained by ICE on December 17, 2025, after a Hamilton County Court sentenced him for operating a vehicle while intoxicated. ICE placed a detainer on him through the Criminal Apprehension Program and transferred him to Hopkins County Jail in the Western District of Kentucky, where he remained at the time of the ruling.
The central dispute turned on which statutory detention authority governed Portillo's confinement. ICE relied on a July 8, 2025 DHS interim guidance titled "Interim Guidance Regarding Detention Authority for Applicants for Admission," which the government argued subjected noncitizens who entered without admission to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225, rather than § 1226. Under that framework, Portillo would have no right to a bond hearing. Portillo argued he should be governed by § 1226, which carries individualized bond-hearing rights, and that his prolonged detention without such a hearing violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
Judge Rebecca Grady Jennings, of the Western District of Kentucky, held that § 1226 — not § 1225(b)(2) — applies to Portillo's detention, incorporating by reference her prior reasoning in Edahi v. Lewis and Vicen v. Lewis. The court noted that Portillo, who has been present in the United States for approximately four years, is not "seeking admission" into the United States, a conclusion the court said was acknowledged by ICE's own use of an I-200 Warrant, which arises under § 1226 authority.
Applying the three-part balancing test from Mathews v. Eldridge, the court held that all three factors favored Portillo. On the first factor, the court cited his significant liberty interest and the disruption to his life in Indiana caused by detention in a separate state. On the second, the court noted that Portillo had received no individualized assessment, no merits bond hearing, and that the government had not demonstrated he was a flight risk or danger to the community — with the only material change in his circumstances being the government's reinterpretation of the detention statutes. On the third, the court held that a routine bond hearing before an immigration judge presents minimal burden to the government and that existing statutory and regulatory safeguards adequately serve the governmental interest in public safety.
The government's response largely declined to engage with the due process merits, instead incorporating by reference briefs filed in four pending Sixth Circuit appeals — Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft, Alvarez v. Noem, Contreras-Cervantes v. Raycraft, and Pizarro Reyes v. Raycraft — and conceding that the only relevant legal question was whether § 1225 or § 1226 governed.
The court ordered Portillo's immediate release, directed the government to provide him a bond hearing on the merits before a neutral immigration judge pursuant to § 1226 and its supporting regulations, and required the government to certify compliance by April 18, 2026.