A federal appeals court has upheld a Trump administration immigration policy that allows the federal government to detain certain illegal immigrants without providing them an opportunity for a bond hearing, a ruling that could significantly expand mandatory detention across large portions of the United States.
In a 2–1 decision issued on Feb. 6, the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that immigrants who enter the country without inspection qualify as “applicants for admission” under federal immigration law. As a result, the court held, they are subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), a statute that requires detention during immigration proceedings and does not allow for release on bond.
The decision reverses earlier rulings by federal district courts in Texas, which had granted habeas corpus petitions to two Mexican nationals—Victor Buenrostro-Mendez and Jose Padron Covarrubias—who challenged their continued detention without bond hearings. Those lower courts had concluded that the detainees were entitled to individualized bond determinations under a different statutory provision, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which grants immigration judges discretion to release noncitizens pending removal proceedings.
Writing for the majority, Circuit Judge Edith Jones emphasized that the panel’s decision rested on the plain language of the statute rather than on policy preferences or prior administrative practice. The court rejected arguments that the Trump administration’s policy represented an unlawful departure from interpretations previously adopted by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or the Board of Immigration Appeals.
“The text says what it says, regardless of the decisions of prior administrations,” the majority opinion stated, underscoring that Congress—not executive agencies—defines the scope of immigration detention authority.
Judge Jones pointed to the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), which fundamentally reshaped immigration enforcement by eliminating the long-standing distinction between exclusion proceedings for those stopped at the border and deportation proceedings for those already inside the country. According to the court, that statutory restructuring placed individuals who entered unlawfully on the same legal footing as those who present themselves for admission at a port of entry.
“By eliminating the exclusion/deportation dichotomy, [IIRIRA] put aliens seeking admission lawfully on equal footing with those who entered without inspection,” Jones wrote. “It seems strange to suggest that Congress would have preserved bond hearings exclusively for unlawful entrants.”
Under the administration’s policy, implemented in September 2025, DHS applies mandatory detention not only to individuals apprehended at ports of entry but also to illegal immigrants encountered within the interior of the country who have not been formally admitted. The policy has had its most immediate impact in Texas and Louisiana, states within the Fifth Circuit’s jurisdiction, where thousands of detainees are held in federal and privately operated immigration facilities.
Supporters of the policy argue that mandatory detention ensures that individuals appear for removal proceedings and prevents the release of migrants who may later evade immigration enforcement. They also contend that the statute leaves little room for discretion, regardless of the humanitarian or logistical consequences.
Critics, however, warn that the policy dramatically expands detention without individualized assessments and could result in prolonged confinement for large numbers of people, many of whom have no criminal history beyond immigration violations. Civil liberties advocates have also raised concerns about access to counsel, overcrowding, and the strain on detention infrastructure.
Those concerns were reflected in a dissenting opinion by Circuit Judge Dana Douglas, who argued that Congress did not clearly intend to require detention without bond for such a broad population when it enacted IIRIRA nearly three decades ago.
“The Congress that enacted the 1996 Act would be surprised to learn it had also required the detention without bond of two million people,” Douglas wrote, cautioning that the majority’s interpretation could produce sweeping and unintended consequences.
Douglas also criticized the majority for dismissing the relevance of long-standing agency interpretations and practical considerations, suggesting that such factors should play a role when statutory language is ambiguous and the stakes are so high.
The ruling was praised by Attorney General Pam Bondi, who described it as a victory for immigration enforcement and a rebuke of what she characterized as judicial overreach. In a post on X, Bondi said the decision confirmed that “illegal aliens can rightfully be detained without bond” and called it “a significant blow against activist judges who have been undermining our efforts to make America safe again at every turn.”
The decision comes amid a broader series of legal battles over the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration agenda, much of which has been tested in the Fifth Circuit. In a separate case decided in September 2025, W.M.M. v. Trump, the same court issued a preliminary injunction blocking deportations of Venezuelan nationals under the Alien Enemies Act, citing due process concerns related to notice requirements.
In that case, the Fifth Circuit ruled that the government’s seven-day notice period was insufficient to satisfy constitutional due process, particularly given the obstacles detainees face in accessing legal counsel and preparing defenses while in custody. The court required at least 21 days’ notice, emphasizing that procedural protections must be “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances,” to provide individuals with a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
The contrast between the two rulings highlights the court’s nuanced approach to immigration law—strictly enforcing statutory mandates where Congress has spoken clearly, while insisting on procedural safeguards where constitutional rights are implicated.
The consolidated appeal in the detention-without-bond case arose from district court proceedings in the Southern District of Texas, where judges had previously ordered bond hearings for the detainees. By reversing those decisions, the Fifth Circuit has now set binding precedent for lower courts within its jurisdiction, potentially affecting thousands of current and future detainees.
Legal experts expect the ruling to be cited in similar cases nationwide and to fuel ongoing debates over the balance between immigration enforcement, individual liberty, and judicial oversight. While the decision does not resolve all questions surrounding mandatory detention, it significantly strengthens the administration’s position and narrows the avenues available for detained immigrants seeking release while their cases proceed.
Whether the issue will ultimately reach the Supreme Court remains uncertain, but the Fifth Circuit’s ruling marks a major development in the evolving landscape of U.S. immigration law and enforcement policy.
Emily Johnson is a critically acclaimed essayist and novelist known for her thought-provoking works centered on feminism, women’s rights, and modern relationships. Born and raised in Portland, Oregon, Emily grew up with a deep love of books, often spending her afternoons at her local library. She went on to study literature and gender studies at UCLA, where she became deeply involved in activism and began publishing essays in campus journals. Her debut essay collection, Voices Unbound, struck a chord with readers nationwide for its fearless exploration of gender dynamics, identity, and the challenges faced by women in contemporary society. Emily later transitioned into fiction, writing novels that balance compelling storytelling with social commentary. Her protagonists are often strong, multidimensional women navigating love, ambition, and the struggles of everyday life, making her a favorite among readers who crave authentic, relatable narratives. Critics praise her ability to merge personal intimacy with universal themes. Off the page, Emily is an advocate for women in publishing, leading workshops that encourage young female writers to embrace their voices. She lives in Seattle with her partner and two rescue cats, where she continues to write, teach, and inspire a new generation of storytellers.
