A federal appeals court has upheld the Trump administration’s policy of detaining immigrants without bond, a decision that marks a significant victory for the administration’s hardline immigration agenda and reverses a series of lower court rulings. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is within its rights to deny bond hearings to immigrants arrested across the country, asserting that federal law does not require such hearings for those apprehended.
The ruling, delivered in a 2-1 decision, centers on the interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Circuit Judge Edith H. Jones, writing for the majority, stated 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.” This effectively allows for the prolonged detention of individuals, even those with deep ties to the U.S. And no criminal record, while their immigration cases proceed.
The decision directly impacts immigrants in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, where the ruling applies. Previously, under past administrations, non-citizens without a criminal history who were arrested away from the border often had the opportunity to request a bond hearing. Bond was frequently granted to those deemed not to be flight risks, and mandatory detention was largely limited to recent border crossings. This practice has now been overturned by the court’s interpretation of existing law.
Attorney General Pam Bondi hailed the ruling as a “crucial legal victory” for President Trump’s immigration policies, stating on X (formerly Twitter) that the decision was “a significant blow against activist judges who have been undermining our efforts to make America safe again.” Bondi also thanked Ben Hayes and Brett Shumate of the Department of Justice’s Civil Division for their work on the case.
The cases that led to this ruling involved two Mexican nationals who had lived in the United States for over a decade and were not considered flight risks, according to their attorneys. Both individuals were detained for months last year before a lower court in Texas granted them bond in . That decision was subsequently appealed by the Trump administration, leading to the 5th Circuit’s ruling.
The dissenting judge, Dana M. Douglas, argued that the ruling misinterprets the intent of Congress when it passed the Immigration and Nationality Act. Douglas wrote that members of Congress “would be surprised to learn it had also required the detention without bond of two million people,” highlighting the potential for widespread and prolonged detention of individuals, including those with strong family ties to American citizens – spouses, mothers, fathers, and grandparents.
The ruling is likely to face further legal challenges. Steve Vladeck, a CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at Georgetown University Law Center, noted that the 5th Circuit is known for its conservative leanings and that the Trump administration strategically chose to have its first appeal on this issue heard by this court. Vladeck suggested that the administration anticipated a favorable outcome and that the case may ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court.
This decision comes amidst a broader context of increasingly restrictive immigration policies implemented by the Trump administration. The administration has consistently sought to expand its authority to detain and deport undocumented immigrants, and this ruling represents a significant step in that direction. The implications of this policy shift are far-reaching, potentially impacting the lives of millions of individuals and families across the country.
The ruling also raises concerns about due process and the fairness of the immigration system. Critics argue that denying bond hearings to immigrants, even those with long-standing ties to the U.S. And no criminal record, violates fundamental principles of justice. The lack of opportunity to argue for release while their cases are pending could lead to prolonged and unnecessary detention, separating families and disrupting communities.
The Department of Justice has not yet commented on its plans for implementing the ruling beyond Bondi’s statement. However, it is expected that the administration will move quickly to expand the use of detention without bond in the jurisdictions covered by the 5th Circuit’s decision. The long-term effects of this policy remain to be seen, but it will have a profound impact on the landscape of immigration enforcement in the United States.
