A divided federal appeals court upheld the Trump administration’s policy of placing people arrested in its immigration crackdown in mandatory detention without an opportunity to be released on bond. This marked the first time an appeals court had upheld the policy, despite hundreds of lower-court judges nationally declaring it unlawful.
What changed
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security took the position that non-citizens already residing in the United States, and not only those who arrive at a port of entry at the border, qualify as applicants for admission. Under federal immigration law, “applicants for admission” to the United States are subject to mandatory detention while their cases proceed in immigration courts and are ineligible for bond hearings.
A conservative 2-1 panel of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reached this decision despite hundreds of lower-court judges nationally declaring it unlawful. U.S. Circuit Judge Edith Jones authored the majority opinion supporting the policy’s legal interpretation.
Why it matters
The ruling is expected to impact thousands of people as the court’s jurisdiction covers Texas and Louisiana, which are dotted with detention centers and house the most immigration detainees. This precedent expands DHS’s authority to deny bond hearings to individuals already in the U.S.—not just those arriving at borders—fundamentally changing detention litigation strategy in the Fifth Circuit.
If you represent clients in removal proceedings within the Fifth Circuit (covering Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi), you can no longer rely on the decades-long practice of securing bond hearings for non-citizens arrested in the interior. Five prior presidential administrations had interpreted the law as only applying to people arriving at the border, but that interpretation no longer applies in the Fifth Circuit.
Other appeals courts are slated in coming weeks to take up the issue, which the U.S. Supreme Court may ultimately need to resolve. Circuit splits on this question will likely accelerate Supreme Court review.
Way forward
-
Reassess detention strategy for Fifth Circuit clients. Bond hearings are no longer an option under the new interpretation; focus instead on expediting removal proceedings or seeking other relief mechanisms.
-
Monitor parallel litigation. Watch for decisions from other circuits—particularly the Second, Ninth, and D.C. Circuits, which have historically favored detainee protections—to identify potential circuit splits for appellate positioning.
-
Review BIA guidance. The Board of Immigration Appeals issued a decision in September that adopted that interpretation, leading to immigration judges nationally employed by the department to mandate detention. Ensure your practice reflects current BIA precedent on “applicants for admission.”
-
Document pre-arrest ties to the U.S. For clients arrested and facing mandatory detention, gather evidence of long-term residence, family, employment, and community ties early, as these may support arguments for relief or humanitarian alternatives outside bond.
Disclaimer
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Fola is a technology company, not a law firm. Immigration law is complex and changes frequently; you should consult with a licensed immigration attorney before relying on any information here. Always verify guidance against the primary source linked above and current BIA/USCIS/DOS policy, as judicial and agency positions may change without notice.