Federal Appeals Court Rules Undocumented Immigrants Lack Constitutional Right to Bond Hearings

A federal appeals court ruled Friday that undocumented immigrants detained within the interior of the United States possess no constitutional right to a bond hearing, regardless of the length of time they have resided in the country.

In a 10-7 decision, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans overturned a lower panel ruling and backed a federal policy enacted last year. The policy authorizes the government to detain immigrants arrested within the country’s interior until their deportation proceedings conclude, denying them the opportunity to petition an immigration judge for release. This marks a significant departure from the practices of previous administrations, which typically permitted migrants deemed neither flight risks nor public safety threats to post bond while awaiting their hearings.

The ruling effectively eliminates the primary legal avenue that federal judges in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi had previously utilized to order the release of detained migrants challenging prolonged confinement. Writing for the majority, Judge Cory Wilson, a Trump appointee, argued that the individuals challenging their detention remained legally applicants for admission and therefore lacked entitlement to a hearing on due-process grounds. Wilson noted in the opinion that the detainees could terminate their confinement at any moment by agreeing to depart the country.

The litigation centers on three men originally from Mexico and Honduras who were apprehended by Immigration and Customs Enforcement following routine traffic stops. All three men have U.S.-citizen children, and one had maintained residence in the United States for more than 22 years.

In a concurring opinion, Judge James Ho asserted that the decision upheld fundamental national sovereignty. He maintained that a nation fails to function properly if it cannot secure its borders, suggesting that dissenting opinions would otherwise provide an incentive for individuals to establish unlawful residence within the country.

Conversely, the dissenting judges contended that the majority’s ruling strips long-term residents of constitutional safeguards long established by the Supreme Court. Department of Homeland Security top lawyer James Percival praised the outcome, labeling the decision a significant victory in a statement posted on social media.

The Fifth Circuit’s ruling arrives just weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review a related case concerning the same detention policy. However, the high court’s upcoming review is limited to evaluating whether federal immigration law mandates bond hearings, leaving aside the broader constitutional question addressed by the Fifth Circuit.