A federal appeals court has ruled that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement cannot hold immigrants in detention for more than 90 days without providing them an opportunity to seek release on bond while their deportation cases are pending. The decision, issued Thursday by a divided panel of the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, could affect thousands of immigrants detained in states under the court's jurisdiction, including Texas and Louisiana.
In a 2-1 ruling, the court sided against the Trump administration, finding that prolonged detention without a bond hearing violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. Judge Leslie Southwick, writing for the majority, emphasized that constitutional protections extend to all individuals within U.S. borders, regardless of immigration status. He cited a 2001 Supreme Court precedent and noted that the cases of two Mexican citizens and one Honduran immigrant were at the center of the dispute.
«It is part of the historic majesty of this long-ago founding charter that it makes no exceptions in providing basic rights to those within our boundaries, including a right to be heard when personal liberty is taken,» Southwick wrote. The ruling marks a significant legal setback for the administration's immigration enforcement policies, which have sought to expand mandatory detention for non-citizens already living in the United States.
In a dissenting opinion, Judge Cory Wilson argued that the majority's decision undermines Congress's constitutional authority over immigration matters. He wrote that the ruling «marginalizes the Constitution's express grant of plenary authority over immigration matters to Congress.» The disagreement highlights the ongoing judicial and political battles over the scope of executive power in immigration enforcement.
The case stems from a broader legal conflict over the interpretation of federal immigration law. The Department of Homeland Security has argued that non-citizens already residing in the U.S. qualify as «applicants for admission» and are therefore subject to mandatory detention without bond while their deportation proceedings unfold. This interpretation marks a departure from long-standing practice, which previously limited mandatory detention to individuals arriving at the border.
In September, the Board of Immigration Appeals, part of the Justice Department, adopted the DHS interpretation, leading immigration judges to order mandatory detention nationwide. However, a different panel of the Fifth Circuit had earlier upheld the administration's detention policy in February, though it did not address the constitutional due process question now at issue.
Rebecca Cassler, an attorney with the American Immigration Council representing the migrants, expressed satisfaction with the ruling. In a statement, she said the group is «delighted that the panel recognized the core constitutional principle that the due process clause does not allow the government to lock them away indefinitely.» The decision requires immigration authorities to provide bond hearings for detainees held longer than 90 days, allowing them to argue for release before an immigration judge.
The Department of Homeland Security responded by stating it disagrees with the ruling and remains confident in its legal position regarding mandatory detention. The administration has signaled it may seek further review, as it recently asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on a similar ruling from another appeals court. The legal uncertainty underscores the high stakes for immigration policy, with thousands of detainees potentially affected by the outcome.
The ruling applies only within the Fifth Circuit's jurisdiction, which includes Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. However, it could influence similar cases in other circuits and add pressure for a uniform national standard. Immigration advocates have argued that indefinite detention without bond hearings violates fundamental fairness, while the administration maintains that mandatory detention is necessary to ensure compliance with deportation orders and protect national security.
As the legal battles continue, the case highlights the tension between executive enforcement priorities and constitutional protections. The Fifth Circuit's decision reaffirms that even in immigration matters, the due process clause imposes limits on government power, ensuring that individuals cannot be detained indefinitely without a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
