Federal Appeals Court Affirms Trump's Immigration Detention Directive
A federal appeals court ruled on Friday to uphold the Trump administration's immigration detention policy, which mandates that individuals arrested during immigration enforcement operations remain in custody without the option for bond release.
This decision, rendered by a conservative 2-1 panel from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, marks a significant moment as it is the first time an appeals court has supported this policy, despite numerous lower-court judges across the country deeming it unlawful.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi took to social media to celebrate the ruling, asserting it dealt “a significant blow against activist judges who have been undermining our efforts to make America safe again at every turn.”
The implications of this ruling are extensive, potentially affecting thousands of individuals, particularly in Texas and Louisiana, where numerous detention centers are located and house a large population of immigration detainees.
In the coming weeks, other appeals courts are expected to address this contentious issue, which may ultimately require resolution by the U.S. Supreme Court.
According to federal immigration law, individuals seeking admission to the United States are subject to mandatory detention while their cases are processed in immigration courts, and they are not eligible for bond hearings.
In a departure from longstanding interpretations of this law, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security asserted last year that non-citizens already living in the U.S., not just those arriving at borders, qualify as applicants for admission.
This interpretation was reinforced by a September decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals, part of the U.S. Department of Justice, which led immigration judges nationwide to enforce mandatory detention.
A wave of lawsuits followed from individuals claiming wrongful detention. Among these were Mexican nationals Victor Buenrostro-Mendez and Jose Padron Covarrubias, who successfully argued in lower courts that they were unjustly denied bond hearings.
However, U.S. Circuit Judge Edith Jones defended the administration’s reinterpretation of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 as valid. “The text says what it says, regardless of the decisions of prior administrations,” she stated in her majority opinion, which included two judges appointed by Republican presidents.
Conversely, U.S. Circuit Judge Dana Douglas, appointed by Democratic President Joe Biden, dissented, expressing concern that Congress would be astonished to learn that the 1996 law mandated the detention without bond of two million individuals.
