Trump Scores Massive Court Victory
A divided federal appeals court has ruled that the Constitution does not guarantee bond hearings for certain immigrants held in federal detention, handing President Donald Trump’s administration a significant legal victory as it defends its detention policy.
The New Orleans-based Fifth Circuit ruled 10-7 on October 23. Its decision applies in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, states with some of the country’s largest immigration detention populations.
Judge Cory Wilson, appointed by Trump, wrote for the majority. The court rejected the argument that the Fifth Amendment requires immigration authorities to provide a bond hearing so detainees can seek release while their cases proceed.
The ruling reverses a July decision by a three-judge panel, which had found that detainees could not be held for more than 90 days without an opportunity for a hearing. The full appeals court later agreed to reconsider the case.
The case involved two Mexican citizens and one Honduran national who challenged their detention. The court’s decision addresses their constitutional claim; it does not resolve every legal dispute over the administration’s detention policy.
In particular, the Supreme Court has agreed to consider a separate question: whether federal immigration statutes require bond hearings. That case concerns statutory authority, while the Fifth Circuit ruling addresses the constitutional argument. The high court’s eventual decision could determine whether the administration’s approach is consistent with immigration law nationwide.
The administration welcomed the appeals court decision. Homeland Security Department General Counsel James Percival called it a “big win in the 5th Circuit on mandatory detention for illegal aliens.”
The ruling supports the administration’s position that detention policy should follow the framework Congress established. Its critics, however, argue that denying hearings can leave people in custody without an individualized opportunity to seek release.
Ellie Norton of the National Immigration Project, who represented the challengers, warned that the decision could allow detention without sufficient justification. Seven judges dissented, reflecting a sharp divide over the constitutional limits on immigration detention.