The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit delivered a ruling late Friday that endorses the federal government's authority to detain illegal aliens without bond during deportation proceedings. The decision aligns with President Donald Trump's administration's interpretation of immigration laws and represents a notable change in enforcement within the jurisdiction of the Fifth Circuit, which includes Texas and Louisiana.
In a 2-1 decision, the court found that federal authorities have the legal right to hold illegal aliens in custody while their removal cases are pending. This ruling supports the Trump administration's stance on enforcing immigration laws as written by Congress, overturning previous lower court orders that had impeded the policy.
The case involved two Mexican nationals who illegally entered the United States in 2001 and 2009 and were detained in 2025 under the administration's policy. The legal argument centered on the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), which the administration asserts allows for the mandatory detention of individuals who entered the country without inspection, as they are considered "applicants for admission."
Judge Edith Jones, a Reagan appointee, authored the majority opinion with Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan, appointed by President Trump, concurring. Jones emphasized the primacy of statutory text over prior administrative practices, asserting that "The text says what it says, regardless of the decisions of prior Administrations."
The Department of Homeland Security had adjusted its policy interpretation last summer, with the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the new interpretation in September. Under this policy, illegal aliens can be detained during deportation proceedings regardless of their length of residence in the United States, with release being an option only on a discretionary basis for humanitarian or public interest reasons.
Attorney General Pam Bondi lauded the ruling as a decisive rebuke of what she described as judicial obstruction of immigration enforcement. Bondi's comments, shared on social media, praised the efforts of Department of Justice attorney Ben Hayes and others for their defense of the administration's position.
Historically, federal immigration authorities have permitted illegal aliens who have resided in the country for extended periods to request bond hearings before immigration judges, with mandatory detention generally reserved for recent border crossers or individuals with specific criminal convictions.
Judge Dana Douglas, a Biden appointee, dissented from the ruling, suggesting that Congressional intent for the IIRIRA did not encompass detaining without bond a vast number of illegal aliens living in the interior of the country. She argued that the decision disregards established immigration practices and historical precedent.
The Fifth Circuit's ruling creates a divergence from several lower court decisions across the country. While many jurisdictions have contested the administration's interpretation, other federal appeals courts are in the process of reviewing similar cases, indicating that the issue may be poised for Supreme Court review.
For the moment, this ruling signifies a substantial victory for the Trump administration and points to an increasing judicial inclination to interpret and enforce immigration law based on its statutory text. The administration views this approach as essential for maintaining order and affirming the rule of law.
