The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday that the Trump administration can lawfully deny bond hearings for many people in deportation proceedings, despite over 300 federal judges having ruled to the contrary. The conservative majority overruled federal judges in two separate cases, bucking nearly 30 years of federal immigration policy.
The decision fundamentally changes how immigration detention operates in the United States. Previously, mandatory detention of "applicants for admission" applied only to individuals in removal proceedings who presented at a port of entry or were detained shortly after crossing the border, while allowing detainees already living in the U.S. to request release on bond.
"In contrast to past administrations, the current administration has chosen to exercise a greater portion of its authority by treating applicants for admission under the provision designed to apply to them," U.S. Circuit Judge Edith Jones, a Ronald Reagan appointee, wrote for the majority opinion. She was joined by U.S. Circuit Judge Kyle Duncan, a Donald Trump appointee.
The case stems from a July 2025 Immigration and Customs Enforcement memo that dramatically expanded mandatory detention policies. Under the new interpretation, all "applicants for admission" — defined in immigration statute as "an alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States" — in deportation proceedings would be subject to mandatory detention.
This means individuals who entered the country without being legally admitted, including those who were paroled into the country, will be subject to mandatory detention and held without bond while they go through removal proceedings, regardless of how long they have been in the United States. Bond hearings are now reserved only for immigrants who were admitted into the country but later lost their legal status.
The policy change has created a stark divide in federal courts. The ICE memo resulted in a wave of habeas corpus petitions challenging the detention policy. According to a recent analysis, over 300 federal judges have ruled that the Trump administration's mandatory detention policy is illegal, with only a handful siding with the administration.
The two habeas petitioners in immigration detention in this case included individuals with longstanding ties to the United States. One petitioner came to the U.S. in 2009, while the other arrived in 2001. Both argued during oral arguments Tuesday that while they were technically "applicants for admission," the statute's mandatory detention provision should apply differently based on their circumstances.
The majority opinion focused on statutory interpretation, with Jones writing that "after reviewing carefully the relevant provisions and structure of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, the statutory history, and Congressional intent, we conclude that the government's position is correct."
The decision represents a significant shift in immigration enforcement priorities. For nearly three decades, federal immigration policy distinguished between recent border crossers and individuals who had established lives in the United States, even if they lacked formal admission status. The new policy eliminates this distinction, treating all non-admitted individuals the same regardless of their length of residence or community ties.
The ruling affects thousands of immigrants currently in detention and potentially hundreds of thousands more who could face detention in future deportation proceedings. Many of these individuals have been living in the United States for years or even decades, establishing families, businesses, and community connections.
Legal advocates have criticized the policy as creating indefinite detention for people who pose no flight risk or danger to public safety. The previous system allowed immigration judges to consider individual circumstances when determining whether someone should remain detained during removal proceedings.
The Fifth Circuit's decision creates a circuit split with district courts across the country, potentially setting up the issue for Supreme Court review. The overwhelming number of federal judges who have ruled against the policy suggests the question may ultimately require resolution by the high court.
The Trump administration has defended the policy as a necessary enforcement tool, arguing that the statutory language supports mandatory detention for all applicants for admission. Administration officials have said the policy ensures that individuals in removal proceedings remain available for their court hearings and eventual removal if ordered.
Immigration attorneys and advocacy groups are expected to continue challenging the policy through appeals and additional litigation. The decision affects not only current detainees but also future enforcement priorities under the expanded detention framework.
The case highlights the broader tension between immigration enforcement and due process rights, as well as the role of federal courts in interpreting immigration statutes. The stark disagreement between the Fifth Circuit majority and hundreds of federal district judges reflects the complexity and contested nature of modern immigration law.