Fifth Circuit Upholds Trump Policy Detaining Immigrants Without Bond
Panel rules 2-1 that DHS can deny bond hearings to 'applicants for admission,' reversing two lower-court orders and affecting two consolidated cases.
Overview
A U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit panel ruled 2-1 on Feb. 6 that DHS may deny bond hearings to "applicants for admission," reversing two district court orders, according to the opinion.
Circuit Judge Edith H. Jones wrote the majority opinion joined by Circuit Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan interpreting the Immigration and Nationality Act to permit mandatory detention, according to court documents.
Attorney General Pam Bondi celebrated the ruling as "a significant blow against activist judges" in a post on X, while Circuit Judge Dana M. Douglas dissented in a written opinion, according to the opinions.
The consolidated cases involved two Mexican nationals who had lived in the United States for more than 10 years and were detained for months before lower courts granted bond, according to attorneys and filings.
Legal experts said the ruling could prompt further appeals and is likely to face review by other circuits and eventually the U.S. Supreme Court, according to legal analysts.
Analysis
Center-leaning sources frame this story as a contentious, consequential rollback of immigration protections by using charged terms (e.g., "seismic policy change," "mass detention"), emphasizing human impact and prior legal norms, and spotlighting dissenting judges and court trends. Those editorial choices, paired with selective historical context, create a critical narrative despite including official quotes.
Sources (9)
FAQ
The panel, led by Judge Edith H. Jones and joined by Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan, ruled 2-1 that DHS can deny bond hearings to 'applicants for admission' under the Immigration and Nationality Act, interpreting it to permit mandatory detention regardless of time resided in the US.
Judge Douglas dissented, arguing that Congress would be surprised by mandatory detention without bond for two million people, including family members of US citizens, and that the policy overrides lawmaking by treating the entire US as the border.
The cases involved two Mexican nationals who had lived in the US for over 10 years, were detained for months, and had bond granted by lower courts before the reversal.[2]
Pam Bondi celebrated it as a 'significant blow against activist judges' and a crucial legal victory for Trump's immigration agenda.[2]
Legal experts predict further appeals, review by other circuits, and likely Supreme Court consideration due to conflicts with other district courts.[5]
History
This story does not have any previous versions.