Federal Appeals Court Backs Trump Administration Policy on Immigration Detention
A federal appeals court on Friday endorsed the Trump administration’s policy of holding broad groups of immigration detainees without access to bond hearings, marking a significant legal victory for the former president’s efforts to tighten immigration enforcement.
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, determined that the Trump administration had correctly reinterpreted an immigration law to disqualify many unauthorized immigrants arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from seeking release on bond while their deportation cases are pending.
Previously, immigrants who had resided in the U.S. Unlawfully for extended periods were generally eligible for bond hearings, offering them the opportunity to convince an immigration judge they were not flight risks and could pursue their deportation defense outside of detention. Mandatory detention was historically reserved for recent border crossings and individuals convicted of specific crimes.
The Trump administration argued that any individual who entered the U.S. Illegally, regardless of how long ago, should be subject to mandatory detention throughout their deportation proceedings. Under this policy, the sole avenue for release would be through discretionary parole granted by ICE based on humanitarian or public interest considerations.
This policy shift led to the indefinite detention of individuals who had been in the U.S. For years, or even decades, and who previously would have qualified for bond hearings, including those without criminal records. The policy has strained resources of government lawyers and has been challenged in federal courts nationwide.
The 5th Circuit panel reversed two lower court orders, upholding the Trump administration’s legal position. The majority opinion, authored by Judge Edith Jones, a Reagan nominee, and supported by Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan, a Trump nominee, asserted that federal law permits the mandatory detention of a large number of unauthorized immigrants apprehended in the interior of the U.S. And classified as “applicants for admission.”
“The text says what it says, regardless of the decisions of prior Administrations,” the opinion stated. “…In any event, that prior Administrations decided to use less than their full enforcement authority…does not mean they lacked the authority to do more.”
Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi celebrated the ruling, calling it “a significant blow against activist judges who have been undermining our efforts to make America safe again at every turn.”
Judge Dana Douglas, a Biden nominee, dissented, arguing that the government’s interpretation of the law disregarded “historical precedent” and “wave[d] away” the fact that previous administrations had not sought to detain individuals without bond on a large scale.
“And for what?” Douglas wrote, suggesting the majority opinion 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.”
The ruling comes as a federal court in California recently ruled that a Trump administration policy seeking to end bond eligibility for thousands of immigrants is unlawful, affirming that all members of a nationwide class are eligible for bond hearings. The ACLU filed the class-action lawsuit, along with the ACLU of Southern California, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, and USC Gould School of Law Immigration Clinic.
In July 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice announced a policy declaring that any noncitizen who entered without inspection is categorically subject to mandatory detention and ineligible for release on bond during removal proceedings. U.S. District Judge Sunshine Sykes of Central California issued a clarifying order in December 2025, pointing to evidence of the government disregarding her summary judgment orders issued in November, and specifically directing immigration judges to ignore those orders.
The National Immigration Law Center (NILC) noted that a federal district court had restored the right of many immigrants to request release from immigration detention on bond in November 2025. The NILC provided a rapid response update on the bond eligibility for undocumented immigrants.
The Fifth Circuit’s decision, however, represents a significant setback for those challenging the Trump administration’s broader detention policies. The case is Buenrostro-Mendez and Covarrubias v. Department of Homeland Security, case number 25-20496, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
