The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under President Donald Trump has secured a significant endorsement from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals regarding its immigration detention policies. In a 2-1 decision issued on Friday evening, the court upheld the administration’s authority to hold immigrants without offering bond hearings, a move that significantly supports the federal government's immigration enforcement agenda.
Circuit Judge Edith H. Jones authored the majority opinion, emphasizing that the government’s interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) is constitutionally sound. According to Judge Jones, the INA stipulates 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 interpretation affirms DHS’s discretion to deny bond hearings to immigrants arrested across the country, not just those detained near the border.
Historically, U.S. immigration policy has allowed most noncitizens without criminal convictions, apprehended away from the border, to request bond hearings while their cases proceeded through immigration courts. In these hearings, bond was frequently granted to individuals considered neither threats to public safety nor flight risks. For nearly 30 years, this approach was consistently practiced under both Democratic and Republican administrations, with mandatory detention generally reserved for those recently crossing the border.
Judge Jones noted that while past administrations often exercised restraint in applying their enforcement powers, their decision not to fully utilize detention authority does not equate to lacking such authority. She wrote, “That prior Administrations decided to use less than their full enforcement authority under the law does not mean they lacked the authority to do more.”
The legal challenge leading to this ruling involved two Mexican nationals who had lived in the United States for over a decade without criminal records and were not considered flight risks. Their attorneys contended that their mandatory detention without bond was unlawful. Initially, a Texas district court granted them bond in October, after they had been detained for several months. However, the Trump administration reversed this policy in July, instituting mandatory detention as standard procedure, thereby overturning decades of precedent.
Friday’s appellate decision also conflicts with an earlier November ruling from a California district court, which permitted detained immigrants without criminal histories nationwide to request bond hearings. This divergence highlights ongoing discrepancies in immigration case law across federal jurisdictions.
In contrast to the majority, Circuit Judge Dana M. Douglas dissented, expressing concern that the legislative intent behind the INA was misrepresented. She argued that the expansive application of detention without bond affecting approximately two million individuals would likely surprise the statute’s original lawmakers. Douglas emphasized the human element by noting that many detained individuals are family members of American citizens. She criticized the DHS policy for bypassing the legislative process and said, “Because I would reject the government’s invitation to rubber stamp its proposed legislation by executive fiat, I dissent.”
Judge Douglas's dissent reflects broader tensions between the Trump administration and the judiciary, with many federal judges accusing the administration of circumventing court orders in immigration enforcement matters.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi lauded the 5th Circuit's ruling as a meaningful setback for what she called “activist judges” obstructing efforts to enhance national security. Bondi pledged ongoing defense of the administration’s “law and order agenda” in courtrooms nationwide, reflecting the administration’s commitment to stringent immigration enforcement policies.