Appeals court affirms Trump policy of jailing immigrants without bond

Law School News

President Donald Trump's administration can continue to detain immigrants without bond, marking a major legal victory for the federal immigration agenda and countering a slew of recent lower court decisions across the country that argued the practice is illegal.

A panel of judges on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Friday evening that the Department of Homeland Security's decision to deny bond hearings to immigrants arrested across the country is consistent with the constitution and federal immigration law.

Specifically, circuit judge Edith H. Jones wrote in the 2-1 majority opinion that the government correctly interpreted the Immigration and Nationality Act by asserting that "unadmitted aliens apprehended anywhere in the United States are ineligible for release on bond, regardless of how long they have resided inside the United States."

Under past administrations, most noncitizens with no criminal record who were arrested away from the border had an opportunity to request a bond hearing while their cases wound through immigration court. Historically, bond was often granted to those without criminal convictions who were not flight risks, and mandatory detention was limited to recent border crossers.

"That prior Administrations decided to use less than their full enforcement authority under" the law "does not mean they lacked the authority to do more," Jones wrote.

The plaintiffs in the two separate cases filed last year against the Trump administration were both Mexican nationals who had both lived in the United States for over 10 years and weren't flight risks, their attorneys argued. Neither man had a criminal record, and both were jailed for months last year before a lower Texas court granted them bond in October.

The Trump White House reversed that policy in favor of mandatory detention in July, reversing almost 30 years of precedent under both Democrat and Republican administrations.

Friday's ruling also bucks a November district court decision in California, which granted detained immigrants with no criminal history the opportunity to request a bond hearing and had implications for noncitizens held in detention nationwide.

Circuit Judge Dana M. Douglas wrote the lone dissent in Friday's decision.

The elected congress members who passed the Immigration and Nationality Act "would be surprised to learn it had also required the detention without bond of two million people," Douglas wrote, adding that many of the people detained are "the spouses, mothers, fathers, and grandparents of American citizens."

She went on to argue that the federal government was overriding the lawmaking process with DHS' new immigration detention policy that denies detained immigrants bond.

"Because I would reject the government's invitation to rubber stamp its proposed legislation by executive fiat, I dissent," Douglas wrote.

Douglas' opinion echoed widespread tensions between the Trump administration and federal judges around the country, who have increasingly accused the administration of flouting court orders.

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi celebrated the decision as "a significant blow against activist judges who have been undermining our efforts to make America safe again at every turn."

"We will continue vindicating President Trump's law and order agenda in courtrooms across the country," Bondi wrote on the social media platform X.

Related listings

  • Google, Meta, push back on addiction claims in landmark social media trial

    Google, Meta, push back on addiction claims in landmark social media trial

    Law School News 02/15/2026

    Jurors in a landmark social media case that seeks to hold tech companies responsible for harms to children got their first glimpse into what will be a lengthy trial characterized by dueling narratives from the plaintiffs and the two remaining defenda...

  • Trump, GOP states ask appeals court to kill ‘Obamacare’

    Trump, GOP states ask appeals court to kill ‘Obamacare’

    Law School News 05/02/2019

    Taking a harder line on health care, the Trump administration joined a coalition of Republican-led states Wednesday in asking a federal appeals court to entirely overturn former President Barack Obama’s signature health care law — a decis...

  • Iran goes to UN's highest court over re-imposed US sanctions

    Iran goes to UN's highest court over re-imposed US sanctions

    Law School News 08/20/2018

    Iran went to the United Nations' highest court Monday in a bid to have U.S. sanctions lifted following President Donald Trump's decision earlier this year to re-impose them, calling the move "naked economic aggression."Iran filed the case with the In...

Texas Adopts Statewide Texting-While-Driving Ban

Effective September 1, 2017, Texas will become the 47th state to pass a statewide ban on texting while driving. Governor Abbott’s signing of House Bill 62 is an effort to unify Texas under a uniform ban and remedy the “patchwork quilt of regulations that dictate driving practices in Texas.”

The bill specifically prohibits drivers from reading, writing, or sending an electronic message on a device unless the vehicle is stopped. That includes texting and emailing. It does not, however, prohibit dialing a number to call someone, talking on the phone using a hands-free device, or using the phone’s GPS system.

Violations would be punishable by a fine ranging from $25 to $99, to be set by each municipality. Although penalties could rise to as much as $200 for repeat offenders.

Studies have found that a driver’s reaction time is half as much when a driver is distracted by sending or reading a text message. According to state officials, in 2015 more than 105,000 traffic accidents in Texas involved distracted driving, leading to at least 476 fatalities.

Business News

New York Adoption and Family Law Attorneys Our attorneys have represented adoptive parents, birth parents, and adoption agencies. >> read