President Donald Trump’s administration secured an immigration victory Friday when an appeals court rejected a constitutional requirement for bond hearings.
Advertisement
The New Orleans-based Fifth Circuit ruled 10-7 that the Fifth Amendment does not require those hearings for detained immigrants.
The decision strengthens the administration’s position as it defends detention practices supporting Trump’s deportation agenda against challenges in federal courts.
Its practical significance is particularly pronounced in Texas and Louisiana, which house the nation’s largest numbers of immigration detainees.
Advertisement
Mississippi also falls within the Fifth Circuit’s jurisdiction, giving the ruling consequences across three states central to the legal dispute.
The conservative majority concluded that detained immigrants are not constitutionally entitled to additional immigration court proceedings beyond those Congress authorized.
Judge Cory Wilson, a Trump appointee, wrote the decision addressing the constitutional arguments raised by immigrants seeking opportunities for release.
Wilson reasoned that petitioners asserting an abstract interest in freedom from physical restraint could obtain release by agreeing to leave.
That reasoning supported the majority’s rejection of the claim that due process requires an opportunity to seek release on bond.
The ruling reverses an earlier panel decision that had imposed a constitutional hearing requirement after 90 days of detention.
In July, a divided three-judge panel ruled 2-1 that ICE could not constitutionally continue detention beyond that point without hearings.
The full appeals court subsequently agreed to reconsider the case, resulting in Friday’s closely divided decision rejecting that conclusion.
The litigation involved two Mexican citizens and one Honduran challenging their detention, according to the supplied report.
Their cases became part of a broader legal battle over the administration’s interpretation and implementation of immigration detention requirements.
Numerous lawsuits have challenged detention practices as Immigration and Customs Enforcement carries out the president’s mass deportation agenda.
Friday’s ruling addresses one major argument raised in that litigation: whether the Constitution itself guarantees the disputed bond hearings.
Advertisement
A separate question concerns whether federal immigration statutes require hearings, an issue the Supreme Court agreed this month to consider.
The distinction matters because a statutory requirement and a constitutional requirement represent different legal grounds for challenging the detention practice.
The Supreme Court’s pending review concerns the statutory issue, rather than the constitutional question the Fifth Circuit resolved Friday.
Accordingly, the appeals court victory does not itself settle the separate dispute now headed to the nation’s highest court.
Advertisement
The Fifth Circuit had already endorsed the administration’s interpretation of immigration law requiring mandatory detention in a February ruling.
Its July panel decision nevertheless recognized a constitutional limit, creating another potential avenue for detainees to seek release.
Friday’s full-court ruling removed that avenue within the circuit, provided the decision remains in place.
The outcome could become especially consequential if the Supreme Court also concludes the administration’s detention approach complies with immigration law.
Together, those outcomes would substantially narrow the arguments described in the report for obtaining the disputed bond hearings.
Homeland Security Department general counsel James Percival welcomed the decision, framing it as a significant victory for mandatory detention.
He called it a “big win in the 5th Circuit on mandatory detention for illegal aliens.”
Advertisement
That response reflects the administration’s effort to defend enforcement authority while courts examine challenges to its immigration policies.
For Republicans favoring stronger immigration enforcement, the decision supports their argument that detention rules should reflect the framework Congress enacted.
The majority’s approach places congressional authorization at the center of the dispute over additional proceedings in immigration court.
Opponents sharply criticized the outcome, warning that denying bond hearings would increase detention and harm families and communities.
Ellie Norton, representing the noncitizens through the National Immigration Project, argued that the ruling would permit detention without sufficient justification.
Her criticism reflects the petitioners’ position, while the majority rejected their claim that the Constitution requires the hearings they sought, Reuters reported.
Seven judges dissented, underscoring substantial disagreement within the court over the constitutional limits applicable to immigration detention.
This article may contain commentary which reflects the author’s opinion.
