A divided federal appeals court on Friday ruled in favor of the Trump administration’s policy of detaining millions of undocumented immigrants, even those who have lived in the United States for decades, without an opportunity to challenge their detention. The ruling represents a significant victory for President Donald Trump as he pursues an aggressive deportation campaign.
The 2-1 decision from the conservative Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals means that in several Southern states, numerous immigrants living in the U.S. Without documentation—including those previously able to remain free on bond while their cases progressed—may now be detained and denied the opportunity to seek release through bond hearings before immigration judges.
In thousands of cases nationwide, federal judges had consistently ruled the policy implemented by Trump last year was illegal, but Friday’s decision marks the first time an appeals court has upheld it. The ruling applies only to immigrants in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.
“The Fifth Circuit is not only the most conservative appeals court in the country; in this panel, the Government selected two of the most conservative judges from that same court. It’s hard to imagine they’re going to have the last word,” a source stated.
Although other appeals courts in the U.S. Continue to examine the policy, the Fifth Circuit’s ruling anticipates a likely showdown on the issue in the Supreme Court.
Friday’s majority decision was authored by Judge Edith Jones, appointed by former President Ronald Reagan, and joined by Judge Kyle Duncan, appointed by Trump.
The two Republican-appointed judges stated that, while the Trump administration reversed decades of executive branch policies allowing undocumented immigrants to be released on bond while their cases were resolved, the current authorities were fully within their power to make the change.
“That prior administrations chose to utilize less than their full enforcement authority… does not mean they lacked the authority to do more,” wrote Jones.
Under previous administrations, non-citizens entering the United States without a valid visa, detained away from the border, and with no criminal history, could be released on bond while their immigration cases developed. This long-standing policy contrasted with the treatment of immigrants detained at the border, who could be subjected to expedited removal proceedings without the opportunity to seek release on bond.
Judge Dana Douglas, appointed by former President Joe Biden, warned in a dissenting opinion that the majority ruling could lead to the detention without bond of 2 million non-citizens in the United States.
“The Government today invokes the authority and mandate to detain millions of non-citizens in the interior, some of them present here for decades, under the same conditions as if they had been detained at the border,” she wrote. “It matters not that this newly discovered mandate arrives without historical precedent, and contrary to one of the fundamental distinctions in immigration law.”
She continued: “It seems the majority is unable to imagine what it would mean to be detained within the United States without proper proof of admissibility and, without a bond hearing, to have to resort to the services of federal habeas corpus counsel to demonstrate one has a right to release and deserves to see the outside of a detention center again.”
“This is not, or not only, a matter of human sympathy, but rather a matter of understanding one of the fundamental distinctions in immigration law, and the very decent reasons for it,” she wrote.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decide?
The court ruled in favor of the Trump administration’s policy of detaining undocumented immigrants without the opportunity to challenge their detention.
Which states are affected by this ruling?
The ruling currently applies to immigrants in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.
What could happen next?
The ruling anticipates a possible confrontation on this issue in the Supreme Court, as other appeals courts in the U.S. Continue to examine the policy.
As this legal battle unfolds, what impact will these changes have on communities with large undocumented populations?
