🔴 Website 👉 https://u-s-news.com/
Telegram 👉 https://t.me/usnewscom_channel
In a 2-1 decision, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Trump administration Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) policy of denying bond hearings for certain noncitizens during removal proceedings.
Previously, federal immigration policy only required mandatory detention of “applicants for admission” for individuals in removal proceedings who were recent border crossers or convicted of certain crimes.
Generally, individuals who had lived unlawfully in the United States for years were eligible to request release on bond and argue before an immigration judge that they should be allowed to contest their deportation outside of a detention center.
🚨 The 5th Circuit has REVERSED two district court habeas orders, holding that noncitizens present in the United States without admission are subject to MANDATORY detention WITHOUT a bond while removal proceedings are pending. pic.twitter.com/jBaAxYq989
— SCOTUS Wire (@scotus_wire) February 7, 2026
CBS News explained further:
But the Trump administration took the position that anyone who entered the U.S. illegally, irrespective of how long ago, is subject to mandatory detention during their deportation proceedings. The only mechanism for release under that policy was if ICE decided to parole them out of custody on humanitarian or public interest grounds.
The seismic policy change has led ICE to indefinitely hold detainees who entered the U.S. illegally years or even decades ago and who previously would’ve been eligible for bond, including those without criminal records.
The mass detention policy has been challenged in federal courts across the country, straining the resources of government lawyers. Most judges have found the policy to be illegal.
But the 5th Circuit panel disagreed and upheld the Trump administration’s legal position, reversing two lower court orders.
The majority opinion — penned by Reagan-nominated Judge Edith Jones and backed by Trump-nominated Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan — sided with the Trump administration’s view that federal law provides for mandatory detention of large numbers of unauthorized immigrants who were apprehended in the interior of the U.S. and deemed “applicants for admission.”
“In contrast to past administrations, the current administration has chosen to exercise a greater portion of its authority by treating applicants for admission under the provision designed to apply to them,” Jones wrote, according to Courthouse News Service.
“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,” Jones added.
Appeals court endorses Trump policy of holding many ICE detainees without bond hearings https://t.co/VjOfOjLIsv
— CBS News (@CBSNews) February 7, 2026
Courthouse News Service has more:
The ICE memo resulted in a wave of habeas petitions in federal courts. According to a recent analysis, over 300 federal judges have ruled that the Trump administration’s mandatory detention policy is illegal, with only a handful siding with the administration.
The two habeas petitioners in immigration detention in the case — one of whom came to the U.S in 2009 and the other in 2001 — argued in oral arguments Tuesday that while they were “applicants for admission,” the statute’s mandatory detention provision applies to people “seeking admission.” An ACLU attorney for the pair said they were not seeking admission to the country but rather relief from removal.
But the panel’s majority found that all “applicants for admission” are “seeking admission” to the U.S. Jones likened the situation to someone applying for college.
“It would make no sense to say that as soon as the applicant clicks ‘submit’ on her application, she is no longer seeking admission, merely because she does not take any further affirmative steps to gain admittance. Instead, she would ordinarily be understood to be seeking admission as long as her application is pending,” Jones wrote. “The same is true here. The petitioners are deemed, by statute, to be applicants for admission pending the resolution of removal proceedings. While they remain applicants, they are presently seeking admission.”
One of two federal statutes in the Immigration and Naturalization Act at issue is 8 U.S. Code §1225, which applies to “applicants for admission.” A provision of the statute states that “an alien seeking admission” who is “not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted” must be detained and put through removal proceedings.
Meanwhile, §1226 governs deportation proceedings more generally, providing for discretionary detention and allowing the government to release detainees on bond while they go through removal proceedings. Federal regulations give people detained under the statute the right to request a bond hearing before an immigration judge.