President Donald Trump has scored a legal victory after a federal appeals court upheld his administration’s sweeping policy of holding large numbers of immigration detainees without access to bond hearings.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem celebrated the decision in a post on X, writing: “For months, activist judges have ordered the release of alien after alien based on the false claim that DHS was breaking the law. Today, the first court of appeals to address the question ruled that DHS was right all along.”
Why It Matters
It reverses two lower-court orders and departs from the view of most federal judges nationwide, who had previously found the policy unlawful.
What To Know
In a 2–1 ruling, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the administration had correctly reinterpreted federal immigration law to bar many unauthorized immigrants arrested by ICE from requesting release on bond while their deportation cases proceed.
For years, immigrants who had lived unlawfully in the U.S. for extended periods were generally eligible for bond hearings, giving them the opportunity to show an immigration judge they were not flight risks.
Mandatory detention was historically limited to recent border crossers and those with certain criminal convictions.
The Trump administration broke sharply from this practice, asserting that anyone who entered the U.S. illegally—even decades ago—was subject to mandatory detention throughout their deportation proceedings.
Under this approach, the only way out of custody is humanitarian or public‑interest parole granted solely by ICE, not a judge.
This change has led to the indefinite detention of individuals who previously would have qualified for bond hearings, including detainees with no criminal history.
It has also fueled widespread legal challenges across the country and placed significant pressure on government attorneys defending the policy.
The appeals panel’s majority opinion was written by Judge Edith Jones, a Reagan nominee, and joined by Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan, appointed by Trump.
They ruled that federal law permits the government to treat these detainees as “applicants for admission,” making them subject to mandatory detention.
“The text says what it says, regardless of the decisions of prior Administrations,” the opinion stated, adding that earlier administrations’ more limited enforcement did not restrict the current administration’s authority.
Judge Dana Douglas, a Biden nominee, dissented. She argued the government’s interpretation disregarded “historical precedent” and downplayed the reality that previous administrations had not detained people without bond on such a broad scale.
What People Are Saying
Attorney General Pam Bondi praised the ruling, calling it a “significant blow against activist judges who have been undermining our efforts to make America safe again at every turn.”
In her dissent, Judge Douglas questioned the necessity and human impact of the policy, writing that the majority’s reasoning was “based on little more than an apparent conviction that Congress must have wanted these noncitizens detained—some of them the spouses, mothers, fathers, and grandparents of American citizens.”
What Happens Next
The decision marks the first time an appeals court has upheld this expanded detention authority, setting up likely conflict with other circuits that have rejected similar interpretations.
Multiple related challenges are already moving through courts nationwide, and the issue may ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
Read the full article here
