Here’s what happened.
President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda suffered another legal setback Thursday after a federal appeals court ruled that migrants cannot be held by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for extended periods without an opportunity to request release on bond.
The 2-1 decision from the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the administration’s argument that certain migrants can remain in mandatory detention throughout their deportation proceedings without a bond hearing.
The ruling could affect thousands of immigration cases across Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, where the Fifth Circuit has jurisdiction.
Judge Leslie Southwick, writing for the majority, said the U.S. Constitution’s due process protections apply to everyone inside the United States, including non-citizens facing deportation.
Citing Supreme Court precedent, Southwick wrote that individuals cannot be deprived of their liberty indefinitely without having the opportunity to appear before a judge.
“It is part of the historic majesty of this long-ago founding charter that it makes no exceptions in providing basic rights to those within our boundaries,” Southwick wrote, arguing that those facing prolonged detention deserve a meaningful chance to be heard.
Judge Cory Wilson strongly disagreed with the ruling.
In a sharply worded dissent, Wilson argued that the decision undermines Congress’ constitutional authority over immigration policy and weakens the federal government’s ability to enforce immigration laws enacted by lawmakers.
The dispute centers on whether migrants already living inside the United States can be classified as “applicants for admission,” making them subject to mandatory detention while their immigration cases remain pending.
Earlier this year, another panel of the same appeals court sided with the Trump administration’s interpretation of federal immigration law. However, that earlier decision did not answer the separate constitutional question of whether detainees must eventually receive a bond hearing under the Fifth Amendment.
Thursday’s ruling answers that question by concluding that holding migrants for more than 90 days without allowing them to request bond violates constitutional due process protections.
Lawyers representing the migrants celebrated the decision.
Rebecca Cassler of the American Immigration Council said the court recognized what she described as a fundamental constitutional principle—that the federal government cannot detain people indefinitely without giving them an opportunity to seek release before an immigration judge.
The Department of Homeland Security quickly pushed back, saying it disagrees with the ruling and remains confident that its interpretation of federal immigration law is correct.
The administration has already asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review a similar decision issued by another federal appeals court, increasing the likelihood that the nation’s highest court will ultimately decide the issue.
Current federal immigration law requires many people seeking admission into the United States to remain in custody while their immigration cases move through the courts, preventing them from requesting bond.
In recent years, however, the Department of Homeland Security expanded its interpretation of that law by arguing that some migrants already inside the country should also be treated as “applicants for admission” and therefore remain subject to mandatory detention.
The Board of Immigration Appeals later adopted that interpretation, prompting immigration judges across the country to order mandatory detention in a growing number of cases.
With federal appeals courts now reaching conflicting conclusions, the legal fight appears headed toward the U.S. Supreme Court.
If the justices agree to hear the case, their ruling could establish a nationwide standard for immigration detention and significantly influence how future deportation cases are handled under federal law.
The decision marks another major courtroom battle over immigration policy, highlighting how many of the Trump administration’s enforcement initiatives continue to face legal challenges even as the broader debate over border security remains at the center of national politics.