The Trump administration won a key victory at a federal appeals court late last week, when its mandatory detention policy for illegal immigrants was upheld, but it still faces skepticism in various other federal courts.
The administration’s mandatory detention policy has faced hundreds of adverse rulings, with illegal immigrants successfully challenging their detention through habeas corpus petitions in federal district courts across the country. Conservative legal analysts have hailed the appeals court’s ruling as a key victory, but several hurdles remain for the administration’s fight to uphold its aggressive immigration policy in federal court.
5th Circuit sides with Trump administration’s detention policy
A three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled 2-1 late Friday in favor of the Trump administration’s detention policy, marking the highest federal court to rule on the matter. The majority on the panel found that just because previous administrations did not use their power under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 to detain illegal immigrants indefinitely, rather than allow them to seek release on bond as had been done prior to President Donald Trump’s second term, it does not mean presidents do not have that power.
“The government’s past practice has little to do with the statute’s text,” U.S. Circuit Judge Edith Jones, an appointee of former President Ronald Reagan, wrote for the majority. “The text says what it says, regardless of the decisions of prior Administrations. Years of consistent practice cannot vindicate an interpretation that is inconsistent with a statute’s plain text.”
The majority opinion, which was joined by U.S. Circuit Judge Kyle Duncan, a Trump appointee, rejected the claims by opponents of the administration that bond hearings are required for illegal immigrants under federal law, reversing the lower district court’s ruling.
“After reviewing carefully the relevant provisions and structure of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, the statutory history, and congressional intent, we conclude that the government’s position is correct,” the majority ruling said.
The ruling was a key policy win for the administration, with conservative legal analysts underscoring the ramifications of the Fifth Circuit panel’s green light for the administration’s immigration enforcement.
“Now – if you crossed illegally and ICE finds you, you’re done,” Will Chamberlain, senior counsel for the conservative legal group the Article III Project, said in a post on X. “You’re not walking American streets freely again unless you prevail in your removal proceeding (which is supremely unlikely). You won’t be able to go to your apartment and grab your things. You are simply done. You can either accept deportation or sit in immigration detention while your lawyer wastes their time on futile filings, and then get deported when you lose.”
Chamberlain also predicted the ruling could clear up backlogs in the judicial system caused by the avalanche of filings by illegal immigrants challenging their detention. Trump administration officials also celebrated the ruling, with Attorney General Pam Bondi calling the ruling “a significant blow against activist judges who have been undermining our efforts to make America safe again at every turn.”
5th Circuit ruling is limited and other courts have largely sided against the administration
While the ruling in the 5th Circuit marks a key victory for the administration, it only serves as a binding ruling for the judicial districts in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, while district courts across the country continue to side with activists suing over the detention policy.
Roughly 300 cases in federal court have rejected the administration’s legal arguments for mandatory detention across different judicial districts, making the 5th Circuit’s findings in the minority. Federal district judges have taken notice of the ruling, but some who are outside of the 5th Circuit’s jurisdiction are still ruling against the administration.
“While the Court is aware of the Fifth Circuit’s recent decision reaching a contrary conclusion, that decision is not binding here, and the Court is unpersuaded by its reasoning, for many of the reasons cogently set forth in Judge Douglas’s dissent, which explains that the majority’s interpretation risks rendering substantial portions of the statutory scheme superfluous and internally inconsistent,” U.S. District Judge Christine O’Hearn, who serves in the District of New Jersey, wrote in a footnote of a Sunday order in a habeas corpus petition by an illegal immigrant.
The 5th Circuit’s ruling giving the Trump administration its key win could be appealed to the Supreme Court, which could issue a ruling, either on its merits docket or emergency docket, which could have nationwide ramifications. The high court typically weighs in on cases where multiple judicial circuits have contradictory rulings on the same matter, but Bill Shipley, a former federal prosecutor, believes the justices could take up the case before such a split among the appeals courts.
“The number of district judges from multiple circuits on the other side will be enough for them to settle the issue. It’s a matter of detention v. release,” Shipley said in a post on X. “They’ll likely hear an emergency application for a stay, and potentially take up on cert pending appeal and have full briefing.”
DHS UNLOADS ON ‘ACTIVIST’ JUDGES GRANTING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS FREEDOM IN HABEAS CASES
The Supreme Court’s action, or inaction, on the issue could shape the fate of Trump’s aggressive immigration detention policy as the challenges to mandatory detention continue to be a never-ending tsunami for federal courts.
In Minnesota, where the Trump administration has focused aggressive immigration enforcement in recent months, the federal district court and the Justice Department have faced dozens of legal challenges. Despite the flood of cases, the administration has insisted it will not be deterred in its operations by the significant number of habeas corpus petitions.