Listen to the article
Appeals Court Upholds Trump Administration’s Immigrant Detention Policy
The Trump administration scored a significant legal victory Friday when a panel of judges on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that federal authorities can continue detaining immigrants without bond hearings, regardless of how long they have lived in the United States.
In a 2-1 decision, the court determined that the Department of Homeland Security’s policy aligns with both the Constitution and federal immigration law. The ruling represents a major win for President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda and contradicts several recent lower court decisions that had deemed the practice illegal.
Circuit Judge Edith H. Jones, writing for the majority, stated that the government correctly interpreted the Immigration and Nationality Act by asserting 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.”
The ruling marks a dramatic shift from decades of precedent. Under previous administrations dating back nearly 30 years, most non-citizens with no criminal record who were arrested away from the border could request a bond hearing while their immigration cases proceeded. Bond was typically granted to individuals without criminal convictions who presented no flight risk, and mandatory detention was primarily reserved for recent border crossers.
The Trump administration reversed this longstanding policy in July, implementing a mandatory detention approach that has significantly expanded the scope and duration of immigrant detention across the country.
The cases before the court involved two Mexican nationals who had lived in the United States for over a decade. According to their attorneys, neither had criminal records, and both were considered low flight risks. Despite these factors, they were detained for months in 2023 before a lower Texas court finally granted them bond in October.
Friday’s ruling contradicts a November decision by a California district court that had granted detained immigrants with clean criminal records the opportunity to request bond hearings—a ruling that had nationwide implications for non-citizens in detention facilities.
Circuit Judge Dana M. Douglas wrote a pointed dissent, arguing that the members of Congress who passed the Immigration and Nationality Act “would be surprised to learn it had also required the detention without bond of two million people.” She emphasized that many detainees are “the spouses, mothers, fathers, and grandparents of American citizens.”
Douglas further contended that the federal government was circumventing the legislative process with DHS’s new detention policy. “Because I would reject the government’s invitation to rubber stamp its proposed legislation by executive fiat, I dissent,” she wrote.
Her dissenting opinion reflects growing tensions between the Trump administration and federal judges across the country, many of whom have accused the administration of disregarding court orders.
The ruling comes amid a broader immigration crackdown by the Trump administration, which has implemented numerous policies aimed at restricting both legal and illegal immigration. Immigration rights advocates have expressed concern that the expanded detention policy will lead to overcrowding in detention facilities, separation of families, and potential due process violations.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi celebrated the decision on social media platform X, calling it “a significant blow against activist judges who have been undermining our efforts to make America safe again at every turn.” Bondi added, “We will continue vindicating President Trump’s law and order agenda in courtrooms across the country.”
Immigration experts note that this ruling could significantly impact thousands of immigrants currently in detention and potentially lead to longer detention periods for those apprehended in the future. The decision may face further legal challenges, possibly setting up a case that could eventually reach the Supreme Court.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
16 Comments
This ruling is a major setback for immigrant rights and raises serious constitutional concerns. Denying bond hearings, even for longtime residents with no criminal record, seems overly broad and likely to have devastating impacts on families and communities.
Absolutely, the government’s detention authority should be limited and subject to meaningful oversight. This decision appears to give them far-reaching powers that could be abused.
From a legal perspective, I’m curious to understand the court’s reasoning in upholding this policy. While immigration enforcement is important, detaining people indefinitely without a hearing raises serious constitutional concerns.
Absolutely, the government needs to provide a clear and compelling justification for such a broad detention authority. This ruling seems to give them far-reaching powers that could be abused.
This ruling is a major setback for immigrant rights. Denying bond hearings, even for longtime residents with no criminal record, is extremely heavy-handed and likely to have devastating impacts on families and communities.
I agree, this is an alarming development that seems to unfairly target law-abiding immigrants. The government should have to demonstrate a compelling reason to detain someone without due process.
This decision is very troubling and appears to give the government sweeping powers to detain immigrants without due process. I hope this is appealed and the courts take a closer look at the legal and human rights implications.
I agree, this is a concerning development that could have severe impacts on immigrant communities. The government’s detention authority should be limited and subject to meaningful oversight.
I’m curious to learn more about the legal reasoning behind this decision. Upholding the government’s ability to detain immigrants indefinitely without a hearing seems at odds with principles of fairness and rule of law.
Yes, I’d like to understand the judges’ interpretation of the immigration law and how they believe it justifies such a sweeping detention policy.
While immigration enforcement is important, this ruling seems to go too far in denying basic due process rights. Detaining people indefinitely without a hearing is extremely concerning and contradicts principles of fairness and rule of law.
I agree, this is a very heavy-handed approach that raises serious civil liberties issues. The government should have to justify detention in each case, not apply a blanket policy.
This is a very concerning ruling that seems to undermine basic due process rights for immigrants. Detaining people without bond, regardless of their circumstances, is heavy-handed and raises serious civil liberties concerns.
I agree, this sets a troubling precedent. The government should have to justify detention in each individual case, not apply a blanket policy.
I’m disappointed to see this ruling, which seems to undermine fundamental rights and principles of fairness. Detaining immigrants without bond, regardless of their circumstances, is a very heavy-handed approach that raises significant civil liberties concerns.
This decision is quite troubling and appears to give the government far-reaching detention powers that could be abused. I hope the courts take a closer look at the legal and human rights implications.