A federal appeals court has ruled against a central piece of the Trump administration's immigration-enforcement approach, holding that undocumented immigrants who live in the United States cannot be held in detention for more than 90 days without a hearing at which they can seek release on bond. The 2-1 decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit was handed down on July 2, CNBC reported.
What the court decided
The majority held that within 90 days of detaining such a person, the government must hold a bond hearing and must give an "individualized justification" for keeping them locked up — showing, for instance, that the person is a danger to the community or a flight risk, according to the Texas Tribune. The court grounded its reasoning in constitutional due-process protections, which it said apply to people living within the country's borders even if they entered without authorization.
Central to the ruling was a distinction in immigration law. The government had argued that undocumented immigrants already in the country could be treated as "applicants for admission" and held without bond until deportation. The majority rejected that reading, concluding that the no-bond rule applies to people arriving at the border, while those arrested in the interior remain entitled to bond hearings. The case arose from the detention of several long-term residents who had been arrested after traffic stops in Texas and had lived in the US for many years, with US-citizen children.
A divided panel
The panel did not speak with one voice. One judge in the majority wrote separately to argue that even 90 days was too long, and that hearings should come sooner. The dissenting judge, an appointee of President Trump, took the opposite view, writing that the immigrants involved were not entitled to challenge their detention under current law and that he would have upheld the government's authority to hold them.
That split on a single panel mirrors a wider disagreement. Different federal appeals courts have come down on opposite sides of the question — some upholding the administration's mandatory-detention policy, others striking it down — a divergence that, in the American legal system, typically pushes an issue toward the Supreme Court for a final answer.
The administration's position
The Department of Homeland Security has defended the policy, saying it is enforcing immigration law as written to protect public safety and predicting that it will ultimately prevail. The administration has already asked the Supreme Court to take up the underlying dispute, and legal observers expect the justices to weigh in given the conflict among the lower courts.
The policy at issue dates to 2025, when the administration directed officials to hold undocumented immigrants in custody until deportation, including those who had been living in the country for years. Supporters of the approach argue it prevents people from disappearing before removal; critics say it allows the government to jail people for long periods without an individualized check by a judge.
What it means
For now, the ruling means that within the Fifth Circuit's territory — which includes Texas and Louisiana, states central to the administration's enforcement push — the government must provide bond hearings to affected detainees rather than holding them indefinitely without review. Thousands of people could be touched by the decision, though its ultimate reach depends on what the Supreme Court does.
The dispute sits at the intersection of two enduring questions in American law: how much process the Constitution guarantees to non-citizens inside the country, and how far the executive branch can go in detaining them. The Fifth Circuit has given one answer; with the courts divided and the government pressing for review, the last word is likely still to come.
