Fifth Circuit Just OVERRULED Trump on Immigration Detention—Constitutional Crisis Brewing

Liberty Check

• A Fifth Circuit panel ruled ICE cannot detain migrants beyond 90 days without a bond hearing, citing due process protections — even for non-citizens already in the country.
• The decision contradicts the Trump administration’s interpretation that all migrants present in the U.S. are ‘applicants for admission’ subject to indefinite mandatory detention.
• The ruling affects thousands in Texas and Louisiana and sets up a major Supreme Court showdown over executive authority versus judicial activism.

A federal appeals court delivered a stunning rebuke to the Trump administration Thursday, ruling that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement cannot detain illegal immigrants for more than 90 days without offering them a bond hearing — even as border enforcement efforts ramp up nationwide.

In a 2-1 decision, the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with foreign nationals over federal enforcement officials, potentially undermining detention policies affecting thousands of migrants in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. The ruling injects fresh uncertainty into the administration’s efforts to secure the border and expedite removals.

Judge Leslie Southwick, writing for the majority, invoked a 2001 Supreme Court precedent to argue that due process protections extend to everyone physically present in the United States — including two Mexican citizens and one Honduran whose cases were at the center of this challenge.

“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, including a right to be heard when personal liberty is taken,” Southwick wrote.

But in a sharp dissent, Judge Cory Wilson accused the majority of judicial overreach.

“The majority marginalizes the Constitution’s express grant of plenary authority over immigration matters to Congress,” Wilson wrote.

The Fifth Circuit had previously been the first federal appeals court in the nation to uphold the administration’s interpretation of immigration law — a framework that classifies non-citizens already living in the U.S. as “applicants for admission,” making them subject to mandatory detention without bond hearings. That February ruling, however, did not address whether the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause requires judges to at least consider releasing detainees on bond.

Now, this latest panel has answered that question — and the answer is a direct challenge to executive authority over immigration enforcement.

Rebecca Cassler, an attorney representing the migrants through the American Immigration Council, celebrated the decision.

“We are delighted that the panel recognized the core constitutional principle that the due process clause does not allow the government to lock them away indefinitely,” Cassler said in a statement.

The Department of Homeland Security pushed back hard, insisting the ruling misreads both statute and precedent.

“We disagree with the ruling and are confident in our legal position regarding mandatory detention,” a department spokesperson said.

The administration has already asked the Supreme Court to review a similar ruling from another circuit, signaling that this issue is headed for a high-stakes constitutional showdown. Last week, the Justice Department filed an emergency petition challenging yet another appeals court decision that blocked indefinite detention without bond hearings.

At the heart of the dispute is a provision in federal immigration law stating that “applicants for admission” to the country are subject to mandatory detention while their deportation cases proceed in immigration courts — making them ineligible for bond hearings. For years, that language was understood to apply primarily to individuals arriving at the border or ports of entry.

But last year, the Department of Homeland Security adopted a new interpretation: non-citizens already present in the U.S. — including those who overstayed visas or entered illegally years ago — also qualify as “applicants for admission” and can therefore be detained indefinitely without a hearing.

The Board of Immigration Appeals, part of the Justice Department, endorsed that interpretation in September. Immigration judges across the country began ordering mandatory detention in cases that previously would have resulted in bond hearings.

Critics argue the policy amounts to indefinite detention without due process — a violation of constitutional norms. Supporters say it’s a necessary tool to ensure that dangerous or flight-risk migrants don’t disappear into the interior before their removal hearings.

The circuit split all but guarantees the Supreme Court will eventually weigh in, likely during the current or next term. Until then, enforcement policies may vary dramatically depending on jurisdiction — creating a patchwork system that complicates the administration’s border security strategy.

The Constitution must be defended — but so must the rule of law and the sovereignty of our borders.