Appeals Court: Illegal Aliens Have No Right To Roam Free

President Donald Trump’s return to the White House came with a clear mandate: restore control of the southern border, enforce federal immigration law and reverse the Biden administration’s disastrous approach to illegal immigration.

Carrying out that agenda has required more than deploying immigration officers and reopening dormant enforcement authorities. Left-wing organizations have repeatedly turned to federal courts in an effort to delay detention, deportation and other measures adopted by the administration.

This week, however, the Trump administration secured two important appellate victories that could strengthen federal authority over immigration enforcement and limit the ability of individual district judges to interfere with removal proceedings.

The first came from the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which temporarily blocked three lower-court judgments that had required bond hearings and resulted in the release of illegal immigrants from federal custody.

The second came from the Second Circuit, which overturned a Vermont judge’s order releasing pro-Palestinian activist Mohsen Mahdawi from immigration detention.

Together, the rulings reinforce a basic constitutional principle: Immigration policy is primarily entrusted to Congress and the executive branch—not to individual district judges attempting to rewrite federal law from the bench.

Fifth Circuit Halts Three Immigration Release Orders

On July 21, the full Fifth Circuit granted the Trump administration’s request to stay three district-court judgments while the appeals court prepares to reconsider the cases en banc.

The consolidated case involves Ignacio Sosnava Rodriguez, Alejandro Villegas Angel and Miguel Angel Gomez Alvarado. All three entered the United States without inspection, remained in the country for more than a decade and were later detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement during removal proceedings.

Federal district judges in Texas concluded that holding the men without individualized bond hearings violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The courts granted habeas relief, ordered their release and prohibited the government from detaining them again without first determining whether they presented a danger or flight risk.

A divided three-judge Fifth Circuit panel initially upheld those decisions on July 2. The panel determined that immigrants in the men’s circumstances would be constitutionally entitled to a bond hearing once detention reached 90 days.

The panel explained that the Supreme Court has recognized the Due Process Clause as applying to people physically present inside the United States, regardless of whether their presence is lawful.

The full Fifth Circuit subsequently agreed to rehear the dispute, automatically wiping away the panel’s July 2 opinion.

On July 21, the en banc court went further and stayed the underlying district-court judgments while the case remains under review. The brief published order granted the administration’s request but did not explain the court’s reasoning or finally resolve the constitutional question.

That distinction matters. The administration won a consequential procedural victory that prevents the three lower-court rulings from remaining in force during the appeal, but the full Fifth Circuit has not yet issued its final decision on whether the detainees are constitutionally entitled to bond hearings.

Justice Department Celebrates Decision

Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate nevertheless described the order as a major victory for immigration enforcement.

He said it was an “extraordinary precedential order making clear that illegal aliens do not have a constitutional right to roam free in the United States during their removal proceedings.”

The statement reflects the administration’s broader position that Congress has authorized mandatory detention for immigrants who entered without inspection and are legally treated as applicants for admission.

For nearly three decades, federal authorities generally allowed many illegal immigrants arrested inside the country to request release on bond while their removal cases proceeded.

The Trump administration changed that approach in 2025, determining that immigrants who crossed the border unlawfully without inspection remain subject to mandatory detention under Section 1225 of federal immigration law—regardless of how long they avoided apprehension.

The Fifth Circuit previously accepted the administration’s statutory interpretation. The unresolved question now before the full court is whether prolonged detention without an individualized hearing nevertheless violates constitutional due process.

Immigration activists argue that a bond hearing does not guarantee release. It merely allows a detainee to argue before an immigration judge that he poses neither a danger nor a serious risk of disappearing.

The administration counters that Congress possesses broad constitutional authority over admission and removal and that courts should not create release procedures that elected lawmakers never authorized.

The en banc Fifth Circuit will now determine which argument prevails.

Three Texas Cases at Center of Dispute

Rodriguez’s case began after he was detained following a traffic stop. He had reportedly lived in Texas for approximately 22 years before ICE placed him in custody.

While detained, Rodriguez filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that confinement without access to a bond hearing violated his Fifth Amendment rights.

A federal judge agreed after applying the balancing framework established by the Supreme Court in Mathews v. Eldridge.

Similar relief was granted to Villegas Angel and Gomez Alvarado, whose cases were eventually consolidated with Rodriguez’s appeal.

The July 21 stay means the district-court judgments granting the men relief are no longer operative while the Fifth Circuit reviews the constitutional dispute.

For the Trump administration, the order may also help resist similar lawsuits throughout Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, the three states governed by Fifth Circuit precedent.

But because the court’s final en banc opinion has not yet been issued, broader claims that the constitutional issue has been permanently resolved remain premature.

Second Circuit Overturns Mahdawi Release

The administration secured a separate victory on the same day when the Second Circuit vacated the order that released Mahdawi, a lawful permanent resident and former Columbia University student activist, from immigration custody.

Federal authorities arrested Mahdawi in April 2025 and placed him in removal proceedings after Secretary of State Marco Rubio determined that his continued presence threatened American foreign-policy interests.

Mahdawi argued that the administration targeted him because of speech and activism opposing Israel’s military campaign in Gaza.

Chief U.S. District Judge Geoffrey Crawford, an Obama appointee in Vermont, ordered Mahdawi released on April 30, 2025. Crawford determined that Mahdawi was likely to succeed on his claim that the administration had retaliated against him for activity protected by the First Amendment.

The Second Circuit did not decide whether Mahdawi’s activism was constitutionally protected or whether the administration retaliated against him.

Instead, the appeals court ruled that Crawford lacked jurisdiction to consider the habeas petition at that stage.

“In overturning that ruling, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Crawford did not have jurisdiction over the case because it should have been resolved in immigration court first,” Reuters reported this week.

The court concluded that Section 1252(b)(9) of the Immigration and Nationality Act requires claims arising from removal proceedings—including many constitutional challenges—to move first through the administrative immigration system.

Only after a final removal order may such issues ordinarily be presented to a federal appeals court through the process established by Congress.

The Second Circuit therefore vacated Crawford’s release order and instructed the district court to dismiss Mahdawi’s habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction.

The ruling represents a significant rebuke to attempts by district courts to bypass the immigration-review process established under federal law.

First Amendment Question Remains Unresolved

The Mahdawi decision does not establish that lawful permanent residents lack First Amendment protection.

Nor did the Second Circuit rule that the Trump administration may deport legal residents simply because officials disagree with their political opinions.

Instead, the court held that Mahdawi brought his challenge in the wrong forum and before the administrative process had reached its conclusion.

That procedural ruling is still important.

Congress deliberately created a centralized system for reviewing removal orders to prevent hundreds of district judges from issuing conflicting decisions that paralyze immigration enforcement nationwide.

Allowing every deportation case to become an immediate federal habeas lawsuit would invite precisely the kind of judicial chaos the statute was designed to prevent.

Free speech deserves constitutional protection. But the First Amendment should not become a blanket tool allowing noncitizens to bypass lawful immigration proceedings or immunize themselves from enforcement actions based on grounds authorized by Congress.

Mahdawi will retain opportunities to present his arguments through the proper legal channels.

Vance Announces Work-Visa Fraud Investigation

The court victories come as the administration expands its immigration-enforcement efforts beyond illegal border crossings.

Earlier this month, Vice President JD Vance announced that the Department of Labor had opened dozens of investigations and issued subpoenas concerning alleged abuse of employment-based visa programs.

Speaking at an anti-fraud event in Milwaukee, Vance said the investigation would focus on employers, labor brokers and foreign actors suspected of exploiting programs such as H-1B visas.

He said the administration intends to ensure that “American jobs … go to American workers and not foreign fraudsters.”

Vance argued that programs created to attract highly skilled doctors, scientists and technology professionals have increasingly been manipulated by corporations and intermediaries seeking lower-cost foreign labor.

The investigation reportedly includes allegations involving fraudulent applications, wage-kickback arrangements, exploitation of foreign workers and efforts to undercut wages paid to Americans.

Legal immigration can benefit the United States when it serves the national interest, follows transparent rules and supplements rather than displaces the American workforce.

Fraudulent applications and corporate schemes that use immigration programs to suppress wages betray both American workers and lawful immigrants who follow the rules.

Restoring Constitutional Immigration Authority

The Trump administration’s recent victories do not end the legal struggle over immigration.

The Fifth Circuit must still decide the constitutional limits of mandatory detention, and Mahdawi’s underlying removal case may continue through the immigration courts.

Nevertheless, the rulings represent meaningful progress toward restoring order to a system that has too often been controlled by activist litigation and nationwide injunctions.

The Constitution assigns Congress authority to establish immigration law and gives the president responsibility for faithfully executing it.

Courts have an essential duty to protect legitimate constitutional rights. But that responsibility does not give individual judges unlimited power to replace immigration statutes with their own preferred policies.

President Trump campaigned on enforcing the border and removing those who have no lawful right to remain.

The American people elected him to carry out that promise—not to watch it be dismantled case by case by unelected judges.