A federal appeals court just handed President Trump a major win that could keep long-time illegal immigrants detained without bond hearings—starting in three states and potentially heading to the Supreme Court.
Quick Take
- The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 to uphold the Trump administration’s expanded mandatory detention policy under the 1996 immigration law IIRIRA.
- The decision applies in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi and reverses two lower-court orders that had blocked the policy.
- The policy treats most illegal entrants in removal proceedings as subject to detention without bond hearings, even if they’ve lived in the U.S. for years.
- Attorney General Pam Bondi praised the ruling as a rebuke to “activist judges,” while the dissent warned the policy could sweep in “millions,” including close relatives of U.S. citizens.
What the 5th Circuit Actually Ruled—and Where It Applies
On February 6, 2026, a three-judge panel on the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 to uphold the Trump administration’s detention approach for many undocumented immigrants facing deportation. The decision reversed two lower-court orders and allows immigration authorities to detain covered individuals without bond hearings in the 5th Circuit’s footprint: Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. The case is docketed as 25-20496.
Judge Edith Jones authored the majority opinion, joined by Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan, while Judge Dana Douglas dissented. The ruling is significant partly because it is described as the first appeals-court endorsement of this interpretation after widespread trial-level pushback. That regional limitation matters: the policy’s impact is immediate inside the 5th Circuit, but its national fate depends on what other circuits do—and whether the Supreme Court intervenes.
The Legal Theory: A 1996 Statute Reinterpreted in 2025
The policy turns on the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 and detention provisions that historically focused on certain categories, including specific criminal noncitizens. In 2025, the Trump administration reinterpreted the law to expand mandatory detention to nearly all illegal entrants placed into removal proceedings, including people who have lived in the country for long periods. Under this view, many are treated as “applicants for admission,” triggering detention rules without routine bond hearings.
Before that shift, many long-time undocumented immigrants could request a bond hearing and argue they were not a flight risk or danger, a process that often limited detention for non-criminal residents who had deep community ties. The new approach narrows that pathway and relies more heavily on ICE discretion such as parole, which reporting describes as uncommon. The ruling signals that, at least in the 5th Circuit, the administration’s text-based reading can override decades of narrower executive practice.
Why This Fight Exploded Nationwide—and Why This Win Is “Rare”
The legal battles ballooned because federal judges across the country largely rejected the administration’s interpretation. Reporting cited a stark imbalance: more than 360 judges turned the policy away while only a few dozen upheld it across roughly 130 cases, after thousands of ICE detention cases were reviewed. That context helps explain why the administration and its supporters view the 5th Circuit decision as more than a routine procedural win—it breaks a streak of courtroom resistance.
Supporters argue the ruling strengthens enforcement and reduces incentives to abscond once removal proceedings begin, especially as the country attempts to reassert border control after years of uneven enforcement. Critics argue the approach strains detention capacity and pressures families through prolonged confinement. The available reporting also notes ongoing litigation elsewhere, including indications that other circuits may be skeptical—setting up the kind of split that often draws Supreme Court review.
Due Process Concerns, Family Impacts, and the Dissent’s Warning
Judge Dana Douglas’s dissent focused on scale and human consequences, warning the approach could lead to detention of “millions,” including spouses, parents, and grandparents of American citizens. Opponents also frame the ruling as a “serious blow to due process,” emphasizing that bond hearings have long served as a check against unnecessary incarceration for people who are not accused of violent crimes. Those arguments may resonate as the policy’s real-world footprint grows.
Appeals court backs Trump in major fight over detaining long-time illegal immigrants https://t.co/rgXwZ2fgsa
— The Washington Times (@WashTimes) February 7, 2026
Attorney General Pam Bondi, by contrast, celebrated the decision as a setback for what she called “activist judges,” tying the outcome to the administration’s public-safety message. From a constitutional perspective, the core tension is not rhetorical but structural: how much process is required before the government can hold a person for extended periods during removal proceedings. The 5th Circuit chose statutory text as its anchor, but the national resolution remains uncertain.
Sources:
Appeals court endorses Trump policy of holding many ICE detainees without bond hearings
Federal Court Rules ICE Can Continue to Imprison Immigrants Without Bond
25-20496-CV0 (5th Cir. opinion PDF)
Fifth Circuit upholds Trump administration’s mandatory detention policy
