A federal appeals court recently issued a significant ruling, upholding the Trump administration's policy regarding the detention of undocumented immigrants. The 2-1 decision by the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals allows for the detention of certain immigrants, including long-term residents apprehended away from the border, without the option of a bond hearing.
This ruling marks the first time an appeals court has affirmed the policy, impacting immigrants within its jurisdiction of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, and potentially increasing the likelihood of the issue reaching the Supreme Court.
Policy Background and Shift
The policy in question, reversed by the Trump administration in July of the previous year, altered a long-standing practice. For nearly 30 years, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, noncitizens apprehended inland without criminal records were typically allowed to request a bond hearing while their immigration cases proceeded. Mandatory detention was largely confined to individuals detained at the border, who could face expedited removal without the option of bond release.
The Trump administration's revised policy asserts that "unadmitted aliens apprehended anywhere in the United States are ineligible for release on bond, regardless of how long they have resided inside the United States."
Prior to this 5th Circuit decision, numerous federal judges nationwide had deemed this policy unlawful.
The Appeals Court Ruling
The 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, supported the government's interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Circuit Judge Edith Jones, who authored the majority opinion, joined by Judge Kyle Duncan, stated that while previous administrations had exercised less than their full enforcement authority, this did not imply a lack of authority for current officials to implement stricter enforcement.
The ruling means that individuals who previously qualified for release on bond while their immigration cases were pending may now be detained and denied bond hearings before immigration judges. The decision directly impacts immigrants residing in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.
The two cases central to the ruling involved Mexican nationals who had lived in the U.S. for over 10 years, had no criminal record, and were not considered flight risks.
Both individuals were jailed for months before a lower Texas court granted them bond in October of the previous year.
Dissenting Opinion
Circuit Judge Dana Douglas penned the dissenting opinion, arguing that the ruling could lead to the detention of up to two million noncitizens in the U.S. without bond hearings.
Judge Douglas stated that the government's asserted authority to detain individuals in the interior, including long-term residents, on terms similar to those apprehended at the border, lacks historical precedent and deviates from established immigration law distinctions.
She further contended that elected members of Congress who passed the Immigration and Nationality Act would be surprised by an interpretation requiring such detention for millions, many of whom are relatives of American citizens, and that the federal government was overriding the lawmaking process through the Department of Homeland Security's new policy.
Broader Legal Implications
This ruling from the 5th Circuit is the first instance of an appeals court affirming the policy. It contradicts a November district court decision in California, which had granted detained immigrants with no criminal history the opportunity to request a bond hearing, potentially impacting noncitizens held in detention nationally.
Other appeals courts continue to review the policy, and the 5th Circuit's decision increases the likelihood of the issue being addressed by the Supreme Court.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi welcomed the decision, stating it was "a significant blow against activist judges" and indicating that efforts to advance President Trump’s agenda would continue in courtrooms.