A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday sided with the Trump administration, ruling that federal immigration law can be read to deny bond hearings to broad categories of people detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The 2-1 decision represents a significant legal victory for the administration’s effort to expand mandatory detention during removal proceedings.
The court concluded the government reasonably reinterpreted statutes to treat many unauthorized immigrants arrested in the interior as ineligible for release on bond before an immigration judge. Historically, long-term unauthorized residents generally could seek bond hearings to argue they were not a flight risk and to continue their cases outside custody; mandatory detention had typically applied mainly to recent crossers apprehended at the border and to certain criminal aliens.
The administration argued that anyone who entered the United States unlawfully, regardless of how long ago, falls within the category requiring detention while removal proceedings are pending, with release allowed only if ICE grants parole on humanitarian or public-interest grounds. Under that approach, ICE has detained people who entered years or decades earlier — including many without criminal convictions — who previously would have had access to bond hearings.
Courts around the country have grappled with this mass-detention policy, and many lower-court judges have ruled against the government, saying the policy exceeds statutory limits and established practice. The 5th Circuit panel broke with those decisions, reversing two lower-court rulings and endorsing the administration’s interpretation that the law mandates detention for large numbers of unauthorized immigrants arrested in the interior and labeled “applicants for admission.”
Judge Edith Jones, a Reagan appointee, wrote the majority opinion, joined by Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan, a Trump appointee, stating that the statutory text is clear and that previous administrations’ decisions to exercise less detention authority do not mean the law forbids broader use. Attorney General Pam Bondi praised the ruling on social media, calling it a victory over what she characterized as activist judges.
Judge Dana Douglas, a Biden nominee, dissented, criticizing the majority’s reading as inconsistent with historical practice and precedent. Douglas warned the ruling could result in prolonged detention of people who are spouses, parents or grandparents of U.S. citizens, and said the majority relied on an insufficient basis to conclude Congress intended such sweeping mandatory detention. The split decision ensures continued legal controversy over the scope of mandatory immigration detention.