5th Circuit Court Upholds Immigrant Detention Without Bond
The Trump administration achieved a significant legal triumph as the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of continuing the detention of immigrants without bond. This decision counters several recent lower court judgments which had deemed the practice illegal.
The ruling, issued on Friday evening, supports the Department of Homeland Security’s stance that denying bond hearings to detained immigrants aligns with both constitutional and federal immigration laws. Judge Edith H. Jones, writing for the 2-1 majority, stated that the government correctly interpreted the Immigration and Nationality Act. She noted, “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.”
Historically, noncitizens without criminal backgrounds who were detained away from border areas could request bond hearings. Under prior administrations, those without criminal records and not considered flight risks were often granted bond. However, mandatory detention policies primarily targeted recent border crossers.
Jones addressed this change, writing, “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 case involved two Mexican nationals who had lived in the U.S. for over 10 years without criminal records. Their attorneys argued they were not flight risks, although they had been detained for months before a Texas court granted them bond in October.
This ruling overturns a November California district court decision that allowed detained immigrants without criminal histories to request bond hearings nationwide. Judge Dana M. Douglas dissented, expressing that Congress, when passing the Immigration and Nationality Act, likely did not intend to authorize the detention of two million people without bond. She highlighted that many detainees are integral members of American families.
Douglas criticized the new Department of Homeland Security policy, stating, “Because I would reject the government’s invitation to rubber stamp its proposed legislation by executive fiat, I dissent.” Her dissent reflects broader tensions between the Trump administration and federal judges, who have frequently accused the administration of ignoring court mandates.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi praised the decision, describing it as “a significant blow against activist judges who have been undermining our efforts to make America safe again at every turn.” She affirmed the administration’s commitment to enforcing its law and order agenda in courtrooms nationwide, in a statement shared on the social media platform X.
