Appeals Court Upholds No-Bond Detention Of Illegal Aliens In Huge Win For Trump
To release someone in the country illegally, or to detain them without a bond hearing, that is the question presented. The 5th Circuit upheld Trump’s no-bond detention policy as authorized by immigration legislation.
Petitions for Habeas Corpus to release illegal aliens from detention, or at least grant them bond hearings, have overwhelmed the federal courts, with most district court judges who have ruled on the subject siding with the detained aliens. It was the practice of prior administration from both parties to grant bond hearings. But is it a legal requirement?
A ruling by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers critical border state Texas, has rejected the argument that a bond hearing and release is required by law. To the contrary, it held that the applicable legislation passed by congress does not require such bond hearings or release. That prior administrations did not exercise their full powers of detention under the law did not mean the present Trump administration could not do so, the court ruled.
From the fairly dense statutory analysis in the 2-1 majority opinion:
The statutory interpretation issue posed by these alien petitioners is novel but not recondite. The petitioners concede that they are deemed to be “applicants for admission,” i.e., “alien[s] present within the United States who ha[ve] not been admitted” by lawful means. 8 USC §§ 1225(a)(1), 1101(a)(13)(A) (definition of admission). Each of them entered illegally many years ago. As such, the government contends, because neither petitioner showed himself to be “clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted,” he “shall be detained” pending his removal proceeding. 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). The petitioners counter that, despite falling squarely within § 1225, they are nonetheless eligible for discretionary release on bond during removal proceedings. Section 1226(a)(2), they contend, applies to them precisely because they did not “seek [lawful] admission” according to § 1225. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)(2). These provisions were framed by the IIRIRA immigration reform legislation in 1996, Pub. L. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (1996), but their interrelation had not been adjudicated until the past few months, when the current Presidential Administration began detaining illegal alien residents, like the petitioners here, for removal proceedings without bond, rather than bonding and releasing them.
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. We REVERSE the district courts’ orders to provide petitioners with bond hearings or release them and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
***
Since DHS began to detain unadmitted aliens under § 1225(b)(2)(A), well over a thousand aliens have filed habeas corpus petitions seeking bond hearings. In most of these cases, the district court found in favor of the petitioner. See Barco Mercado v. Francis, No. 25-cv-6582, — F. Supp. 3d —-, 2025 WL 3295903, at *13 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2025) (listing 350 decisions that found for the habeas petitioner).4 ….
Finding no persuasive support either from the text of § 1225 or Jennings, the petitioners turn to the government’s longstanding practice. They point out that the government has, for twenty-nine years, allowed illegal resident aliens, those present without having been admitted, to seek release on bond under § 1226(a) instead of detaining them pursuant to § 1225(b)(2)(A). While that is true, the government’s past practice has little to do with the statute’s text. The text says what it says, regardless of the decisions of prior Administrations. Years of consistent practice cannot vindicate an interpretation that is inconsistent with a statute’s plain text. See, e.g., Pereira v. Sessions, 585 U.S. 198, 204, 138 S. Ct. 2105, 2111 (2018)….
In any event, that prior Administrations decided to use less than their full enforcement authority under § 1225(b)(2)(A) does not mean they lacked the authority to do more…. 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.
The reactions to the ruling reflect how impactful it will be.
🚨🚨ENORMOUS Immigration win for President Trump. The Fifth Circuit, the first federal court to address President Trump's expedited removal efforts, sides with the administration. Illegal aliens may be detained and removed! Judge Jones, joined by Duncan. Judge Douglas dissents. pic.twitter.com/4K89hrb59T
— Eric W. (@EWess92) February 7, 2026
This decision is massively important – one of the most important of the year. It means that if you are an illegal alien who never presented themselves at a port of entry, and ICE finds you, you can and must be detained without bail.
The knock on effects from this will be… https://t.co/9pOKNmkw9W
— Will Chamberlain (@willchamberlain) February 7, 2026
Tonight our @TheJusticeDept attorneys secured yet another crucial legal victory in support of @POTUS Trump’s immigration agenda.
The Fifth Circuit just held illegal aliens can rightfully be detained without bond – a significant blow against activist judges who have been…
— Attorney General Pamela Bondi (@AGPamBondi) February 7, 2026
It’s worth noting that no other Court of Appeals has ruled on this issue yet. If another appeals court rules to the contrary, that will set up a circuit split that virtually guarantees SCOTUS will take the case. But even without that, it may get there sooner if the illegal aliens try to take this case to SCOTUS.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
This is the correct decision by this court. If illegal aliens do not use due process to enter our nation, they do not get due process when deported. Period.
It is our nation, and we get to decide who comes and who goes.
This is the correct decision by this court.
The ONLY ‘due process’ they are entitled to is determining they are here illegally.
“The ONLY ‘due process’ they are entitled to is determining they are here illegally.”
I would argue that the proper phasing is “The ONLY ‘due process’ they are entitled to is the opportunity to show they are here legally.” Which side has the burden of proof? Seems to me the burden is on the alien to show he is here legally, and if he fails in that burden he’s deportable.
I don’t think the Government is required to prove he’s illegal, just to give him the opportunity to show he is here legally. Seems to me it’s like driving a car — it you’re pulled over you have the burden to show a license or other proof of authority to be driving, the state doesn’t have to prove you don’t for a license check (perhaps if they charge you criminally with driving illegally they would, but not just to get you off the road unless you can show a license to be there). Please correct me if I’m wrong.
That is not true and it is not what the court decided. This decision is consistent with the decision of the third circuit a few weeks ago in the Mahmoud Khalil case, which said that Mr Khalil does have the right to present his case to a real court — but only after there is a final deportation order, and only to an appeals court, not a district court.
Until then he can be held in custody if the government likes, and if it turns out that his claim was valid and the government should not have been trying to deport him in the first place, and therefore his detention was unfair, that will be hard on him but there’s nothing the courts can do about it.
Yes, your long hand explanation is the law professor in you describing the ‘grinds slow and fine’ aspect of our legal system.
My short hand statement above describes the same net effect: Habeas Corpus is foundational to our legal system, however illegals will not get due process (habeas corpus) when awaiting deportation because they didn’t use due process to enter (lawful residency, naturalized citizen, etc).
Note I did not say ‘illegals will be not granted habeas corpus.’ That due process will have a severe caveat for them that is not imposed upon citizens.
I think we both agree the process is part of the punishment.
You’ve invented that idea out of whole cloth. The Supreme Court already says that criminal infiltrators are entitled to due process. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) found that they could not be detained indefinitely even after the entry of a final order of removal and instead had to be deported or released “within a reasonable time.” To find otherwise “would raise a serious constitutional problem” under the Due Process Clause.
You can’t just make shit up and pretend it’s law.
I haven’t invented anything. I’m merely reading a key conclusion from the majority opinion.
“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. We REVERSE the district courts’ orders to provide petitioners with bond hearings or release them and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
You can’t just can’t ignore the law, and pretend it’s shit.
LB, Denizen is correct. They are entitled to a hearing and due process. But only after a final order is entered. Zadvydas is talking about holding them indefinitely after they have been issued a final order of deportation, but the government has not found it convenient to actually deport them. SCOTUS said that at some point it must shit or get off the pot. Either deport or release. But while the immigration “court” proceedings are ongoing it’s entirely up to the president whether to grant a bond or not.
LB1901, what?
That passage says zero about whether due-process rights exist. The 5th Circuit opinion has absolutely nothing to say on that question. It’s a pure question of statutory interpretation of whether the people at issue were subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) or § 1226(a). The answer is § 1225(b)(2)(A). The opinion makes no claim that due process is inapplicable. That would plainly be wrong. You are making things up because you want to have opinions without knowing anything.
I think you can tell from the fact that I’m describing the people at issue as “criminal infiltrators” that I have little concern for their legal rights. But there’s a correct legal answer here and you have absolutely no idea what the question is, much less what the answer is.
Federal courts in the United States are sometimes classified as Article I courts, Article II courts, and Article III courts, in reference to the first three articles of the U.S. Constitution.
Article II courts deal with immigration. Article III courts include district courts the supreme court, and courts with criminal proceedings. Immigration proceedings to bar an alien’s entry or to remove or an alien present inside the United States are not criminal proceedings. Hence the Article III courts have zero jurisdiction here. As the Supreme Court of the United States first outlined in 1893 in Fong Yue Ting v. U.S.: “The [immigration] proceeding…is in no proper sense a trial and sentence for a crime or offense. It is simply the ascertainment, by appropriate and lawful means, of the fact whether the conditions exist upon which Congress has enacted that an alien of this class may remain within the country. The order of deportation is not a punishment for crime.…”
So, I reject the notion that any article III court has any say whatsoever in the proceedings of an article II court. The provisions of the constitution do not apply to article II decisions.
Just look at how illegals get arrested: Federal immigration officers do not need a warrant issued by a judge before arresting and detaining aliens and aliens are not entitled to be advised of their Miranda rights or to the assistance of a government-appointed lawyer during their deportation proceedings. Because none of that article III stuff applies to them. Neither does Habeas Corpus.
Article III courts are illegally and in defiance of the constitution and previous supreme court precedent, inserting themselves into the article II process.
Article II by the way, says these are not even trials. These are administrative hearings. It’s like going to the principal’s office with your kid and demanding a lawyer and a jury. It’s laughable.
This is also why Judge Boasberg’s rulings are so outrageous and insane. He has no more power than anyone outside the article II process in ordering immigration cases about. Literally none. His opinion is entirely worthless. He is trying to hold people in contempt for rulings he never should have made and has no power to enforce.
This is ridiculous. Article 2 “courts” are not courts. By definition courts can only exist in the judicial branch! That’s what the judicial branch is.
And every person in the government’s custody, except prisoners of war, have the right to habeas corpus. Which is the province of the courts, i.e. the real courts, those described in Article 3. Congress has no power to change that.
Even people alleged to be prisoners of war have the right to a hearing to determine whether that allegation is correct. The government can’t just snatch someone up and hold them indefinitely by simply saying they’re a prisoner of war. If the person disputes that status, the government has to prove it, and only then does the person lose any further right to habeas.
But as the 3rd and now the 5th circuits have affirmed, Congress has limited alleged illegal aliens’ rights to judicial review, by making them exhaust all administrative relief before bothering the courts, and by cutting district courts out of the process. So long as the administration hasn’t finally decided to deport someone, they must remain in that process. The courts can’t be burdened with all these cases, which might turn out to be nothing because the administration might decide not to deport the person. So they must wait until there’s a final order to deport them, and then they can go to the courts, but not a district court, they must go directly to an appeals court.
Yes! Eat that you progressive lawless judges.
What cracks me up about this opinion is that the Court takes gawd-how-many-pages to point out to the oblivious, i.e., District Court judges and the dissent, that clearly written statutes that all use the same word clearly mean what they say (yes, I know I used “clearly” twice), and that the U.S. was following the statutes as written.
District Courts are straining at a gnat’s ass to find that the government is acting unlawfully. I hope this opinion puts an end to that.
It would, in a sane world. Democrats don’t live in a sane world so this will not put an end to their insurrection:
Obviously, great news.
But does anyone get why it matters? Even if § 1226 applies to an alien who criminally infiltrated the United States and presents no claim for lawful admission, I don’t see why that entitles the alien to a bail hearing. Section 1226(a) just says that the AG “may” release the alien on ond. At the same time, § 1226(b) says that the AG “may” revoke bond. So the AG could just say that nobody ever gets bond. Why would the alien get bond despite a contrary desire of the AG? Are there some regs or something?
It won’t put an end to it. This was a 3 judge panel that decided 2-1. The 9th circuit will get a case and decide the other way. Hopefully soon so it will go to the supreme court and that will put an end to it.
That had zero to do with my question.
Agree with you, all democrats will do is shop another circuit in the hope they can get a judgement in their favour and then we are back to square one.
It appears the answer is “yes,” there are regs that say that you get a bond hearing, particularly 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-8/chapter-V/subchapter-A/part-1003/subpart-C/section-1003.19
I have no idea why the Trump Administration didn’t just get rid of that regulation and say there’s no bond permitted.
That section seems to relate only to appeals to immigration “courts”, not to real courts. Within the immigration “court” system he can get as many hearings as they want to give him, but that entire system is run by the president and does as the president directs. He doesn’t get an appeal to a real court, that is independent of the president, until after there’s a final deportation order. Then he gets one chance, before a federal appeals court, and that’s it.
So I’m guessing this decision is only applicable in TX, LA, and MS?
It’ll be business as usual in the other 47 states…. ho hum.
In a nutshell, it means the illegal only has to be caught once. Whatever claim they may think hey have to not be deported must be done as an in-custody party. From when they get picked up at the Home Depot lot until they get on the plane back to country of origin, they remain in jail.
Article III judges have inserted themselves into the processes via specious Habeas Corpus claims. They also insist that aliens be released to prevent overcrowding. But they have zero legal authority in these cases. They might as well be ruling over whether Iran can legally detain political prisoners – they have no authority whatsoever. That is the much bigger problem here -article III judges insisting on interfering with article II judicial proceedings.
People have been listening to article III judges because they can hold people in contempt of their rulings and have bailiffs and U.S. Marshals arrest you. But, if it ever went to trial, you’d win, because, as I say, they have zero actual legal authority.
The Supreme Court already ruled that district courts have habeas jurisdiction in immigration proceedings. E.g. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 US 678 (2001). You have no idea what you’re talking about.
I have no tolerance for all of the bullshit opposition to immigration enforcement. But you can’t just make things up in law. I had to spent close to 10 hours to have a basic understanding of the law in this area as an appellate attorney. Even then, I am very careful about saying anything. You have done no work and don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. Until you do the work, be quiet.
Well then Luis Alberto Castillo Rivera.
There’s a growing trend here in our Federal Appeals (Circuit) Courts to make clear that Immigration Court’s are just as valid as Bankruptcy Courts and Military Courts. All three arise from Congress using its Article I powers over these specific areas/topics to establish/’regulate’ separate processes for them outside of Article III Courts but with the opportunity of review by ART III AFTER the conclusion of the proceedings. Personally I’d argue for putting all three on the same footing by creating a more formal Appeals CT for both Bankruptcy and Immigration just as the Military has with Military Court of Appeals, then the individual could direct their appeal to that CT and then petition for cert to SCOTUS which SCOTUS could take up or deny.
You might be thinking, I wonder what’s next? I’m thinking what’s next for Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland man who was rightfully deported to his native El Salvador in March of last year, and by Thursday, we will learn whether the federal government has the lawful authority to “re-detain” him.
Maryland federal Judge Paula Xinis says she will rule by Feb. 12 on whether the removal order granted a year ago was final. If she determines it was, the government could take him back into custody.
In the meantime, the Trump Administration has identified several countries where Abrego Garcia could be deported, including several in Africa. His preference is to be deported to Costa Rica, where he would not fear being re-deported to El Salvador. Where in U.S. immigration law does it state that an alien who entered the U.S. illegally and has a lawful deportation order gets to choose which country he or she prefers to be deported to?
I am wondering what effect, if any, this recent Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling might have on Judge Paula Xinis’ decision in the Abrego Garcia case?
I also wonder whether Sen. Chris Van Hollen is influencing the Maryland judge to stall and keep kicking the can down the road, in an attempt to run out the clock on the Trump administration.
When the government detains a person who is in the country illegally, the detainee’s status means that immediately upon release he will be re-offending. He’ll actually be released to re-offend, because release into the community make re-offense unavoidable. The same can’t be said (with similar certainty) about a murderer or rapist.