Appeals Court Hands Trump Big Immigration Win
A federal appeals court has upheld a Trump-era immigration policy allowing authorities to detain undocumented immigrants without bond hearings while deportation proceedings are pending—a ruling that could have sweeping implications for immigration enforcement nationwide.
In a 2–1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the federal government’s interpretation of immigration law permitting mandatory detention during removal proceedings is lawful. The decision overturns earlier rulings from two lower courts that had blocked the policy, marking a major legal victory for enforcement-first immigration policies championed under President Donald J. Trump’s second-term administration.
Under the ruling, individuals who entered the United States unlawfully and are facing deportation may be held in custody without routine bond hearings before immigration judges until their cases are resolved—a process that can take months or even years.
The decision takes immediate effect within the Fifth Circuit, which includes Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi—states that collectively house the largest share of the nation’s immigration detention facilities. Legal observers say the ruling could also influence similar challenges currently working their way through other federal courts.
The case centered on two Mexican nationals, Victor Buenrostro-Mendez and Jose Padron Covarrubias, who entered the United States illegally in 2009 and 2001, respectively. After being detained in 2025, both men requested bond hearings. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement denied those requests, citing a September 2025 ruling by the Board of Immigration Appeals that adopted a revised interpretation of existing immigration statutes.
The Fifth Circuit’s decision is the first time a federal appellate court has upheld the mandatory detention policy, directly contradicting dozens of district court rulings across the country that had found similar practices unlawful.
Supporters argue the ruling strengthens the government’s ability to enforce immigration law and prevents individuals from being released into American communities while their cases drag on through an already overwhelmed immigration system. Immigration activists, meanwhile, have criticized the decision as a sharp break from prior detention norms.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs said they are weighing further legal action, including a potential appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, though no appeal has yet been filed.
The ruling comes amid a series of recent court decisions reinforcing federal authority over immigration enforcement. Last week, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that federal courts lack jurisdiction to review visa revocations tied to sham marriages, affirming that such decisions fall squarely within the discretion of the Department of Homeland Security.
That case clarified that while courts may review initial visa denials, they cannot intervene once DHS revokes an already approved visa—underscoring the department’s broad authority over immigration matters and aligning with President Trump’s push to overhaul the system and accelerate deportations.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, wrote for the Court, describing the statute at issue as “a quintessential grant of discretion” to DHS.
“Congress did not impose specific criteria or conditions limiting this authority, nor did it prescribe how or when the Secretary must act. Context reinforces the discretionary nature of §1155,” the majority wrote.
“Section 1155 is a quintessential grant of discretion: The Secretary ‘may’ revoke a previously approved visa petition ‘at any time’ for what the Secretary deems ‘good and sufficient cause,’” the unanimous 9–0 ruling stated.
The case, Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, involved Amina Bouarfa, a U.S. citizen whose husband’s visa was revoked after DHS determined he had previously engaged in a fraudulent marriage—an offense that permanently disqualifies an applicant from lawful permanent residency.
During oral arguments, several justices pointed to statutory language limiting judicial review to initial visa denials, signaling Congress’s clear intent to preserve DHS authority over revocation decisions. Chief Justice John Roberts noted that Bouarfa’s husband could reapply for a visa and potentially seek judicial review if denied, though the petitioner’s attorney argued the process imposes severe delays and hardships on families.
Together, the rulings signal a broader judicial shift toward deference to immigration enforcement authorities—an outcome long sought by conservatives calling for a return to the rule of law at the border.