Share and Follow
The Trump administration has secured a significant legal endorsement for its immigration policies, as a federal appeals court allows the continued detention of immigrants without the option of bail. This decision marks a pivotal triumph for the administration’s immigration enforcement strategy, overturning a series of lower court rulings that had deemed such practices unlawful.
On Friday evening, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a ruling affirming that the Department of Homeland Security’s policy of denying bond hearings to detained immigrants aligns with both constitutional mandates and federal immigration statutes. The decision, supported by a majority opinion penned by Circuit Judge Edith H. Jones, upholds the government’s interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The ruling specifies that immigrants apprehended within U.S. borders, regardless of their duration of stay, do not qualify for bond release.
Historically, administrations prior to Trump offered bond hearings to noncitizens devoid of criminal records, especially those apprehended away from border regions. Such individuals often received bond if they posed no flight risk, and mandatory detention was typically reserved for recent border crossers. Judge Jones noted in her opinion that while previous administrations opted for less stringent enforcement, this did not negate the federal government’s authority to implement stricter measures.
Her ruling underscores a broader interpretation of enforcement capabilities under the law, suggesting that the decisions of past administrations to exercise leniency do not limit the current administration’s ability to enforce immigration laws more rigorously. The ruling may have far-reaching implications for how immigration laws are enforced across the United States.
“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,” Jones wrote.
The plaintiffs in the two separate cases filed last year against the Trump administration were both Mexican nationals who had both lived in the United States for over 10 years and weren’t flight risks, their attorneys argued. Neither man had a criminal record, and both were jailed for months last year before a lower Texas court granted them bond in October.
The Trump White House reversed that policy in favor of mandatory detention in July, reversing almost 30 years of precedent under both Democrat and Republican administrations.
Friday’s ruling also bucks a November district court decision in California, which granted detained immigrants with no criminal history the opportunity to request a bond hearing and had implications for noncitizens held in detention nationwide.
Circuit Judge Dana M. Douglas wrote the lone dissent in Friday’s decision.
The elected congress members who passed the Immigration and Nationality Act “would be surprised to learn it had also required the detention without bond of two million people,” Douglas wrote, adding that many of the people detained are “the spouses, mothers, fathers, and grandparents of American citizens.”
She went on to argue that the federal government was overriding the lawmaking process with DHS’ new immigration detention policy that denies detained immigrants bond.
“Because I would reject the government’s invitation to rubber stamp its proposed legislation by executive fiat, I dissent,” Douglas wrote.
Douglas’ opinion echoed widespread tensions between the Trump administration and federal judges around the country, who have increasingly accused the administration of flouting court orders.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi celebrated the decision as “a significant blow against activist judges who have been undermining our efforts to make America safe again at every turn.”
“We will continue vindicating President Trump’s law and order agenda in courtrooms across the country,” Bondi wrote on the social media platform X.