California — A divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on Friday reversed lower-court rulings and held that the federal government may lawfully deny bond hearings to a broad class of noncitizens in removal proceedings, endorsing a significant expansion of mandatory immigration detention.
The consolidated cases involved two Mexican nationals—Victor Buenrostro-Mendez and Jose Padron Covarrubias—who entered the United States unlawfully in 2009 and 2001, respectively, and later sought release on bond while contesting their removal. Federal district courts in Texas had ordered bond hearings, relying on decades of practice that generally allowed noncitizens already living in the United States to seek release during removal proceedings.
Writing for the majority, Circuit Judge Edith Jones concluded that the Immigration and Nationality Act requires detention without bond for all “applicants for admission” who are not “clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted,” regardless of how long they have resided in the country. The court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A)—not the discretionary detention provision in § 1226—governs such cases.
“Presence without admission deems the petitioners to be applicants for admission,” Jones wrote, reasoning that individuals who entered without lawful admission remain “seeking admission” for statutory purposes until their removal proceedings conclude. The panel emphasized Congress’s 1996 immigration reforms, which eliminated earlier distinctions between individuals apprehended at ports of entry and those detained later inside the United States.
The ruling reversed district-court orders granting bond hearings and remanded the cases for further proceedings, aligning the Fifth Circuit with a July 2025 decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals that reached the same conclusion.
In a dissent, Circuit Judge Dana Douglas criticized the majority for adopting what she described as a novel interpretation inconsistent with statutory text and nearly three decades of judicial and administrative practice. Douglas pointed to the wave of habeas petitions filed nationwide after the government adopted the policy and noted that hundreds of federal judges have ruled against mandatory detention in similar cases.
“The majority stakes the largest detention initiative in American history on a reading of the statute that Congress has never applied this way,” Douglas wrote, warning that the decision could result in prolonged detention of noncitizens with deep family and community ties in the United States.
Following the decision, Pamela Bondi praised the ruling in a post on X, calling it “a crucial legal victory” for the administration. Bondi wrote that the Fifth Circuit “held illegal aliens can rightfully be detained without bond,” describing the ruling as “a significant blow against activist judges who have been undermining our efforts to make America safe again at every turn.” She thanked Department of Justice attorneys who argued the case and said the administration would “continue vindicating President Trump’s law and order agenda in courtrooms across the country.”
The Fifth Circuit’s decision marks the first appellate ruling squarely endorsing the administration’s interpretation, setting the stage for further litigation—and potential Supreme Court review—over the scope of mandatory immigration detention.
About the Author
Discover more from Right Now Oregon
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
