The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday held that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) cannot impose mandatory detention beyond 90 days without offering detainees a meaningful opportunity to seek release on bond. In a 2-1 decision, Judge Leslie Southwick wrote that the Fifth Amendment’s due process protections extend to the migrants at issue and require an individualized hearing when personal liberty is at stake.
“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 for the majority, as reported by Fox News.
How the ruling limits mandatory detention beyond 90 days
The panel concluded that federal detention that continues past 90 days without an opportunity for a bond hearing violates due process under the specific facts before the court. The 2-1 ruling rejects a government practice that had, in some cases, denied bond to certain noncitizens automatically while removal proceedings moved forward.
The majority emphasized that prolonged confinement implicates liberty interests and therefore requires procedural safeguards, citing Supreme Court precedent recognizing that constitutional protections can extend to noncitizens present within U.S. territory. The opinion tied its analysis to earlier rulings and constitutional principles rather than to a single statutory reading.
Who this affects in the Fifth Circuit
The decision covers immigration detainees in the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ jurisdiction, which includes federal cases arising in Texas and Louisiana. It applies to the individuals whose specific circumstances were before the court; the panel instructed lower courts and ICE to provide timely review when detention extends beyond the 90-day threshold.
Practically, the ruling affects people in ICE custody who have been held past 90 days while removal proceedings continue. Immigration judges and ICE officers in the Fifth Circuit will likely need to adjust procedures for bond hearings unless the ruling is stayed on appeal.
Legal reasoning and the split
The majority grounded its decision in the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause and in precedent holding that noncitizens within U.S. territory may benefit from constitutional protections. The opinion rejected the government’s narrower interpretation that would permit mandatory detention without timely judicial review of continued confinement.
The Board of Immigration Appeals and the Department of Homeland Security had adopted an interpretation treating some noncitizens as “applicants for admission,” a classification that the government argued could place them outside the normal availability of bond. The majority disturbed that outcome for the detainees before it, concluding that a blanket denial of bond after 90 days, without individualized review, was incompatible with due process in these cases.
Judge Cory Wilson dissented. He warned the majority that its approach “marginalizes the Constitution’s express grant of plenary authority over immigration matters to Congress,” arguing the court was altering statutory allocation of authority traditionally handled by the political branches. Wilson’s dissent framed the issue as one of statutory interpretation and separation of powers rather than an immediate constitutional limit on detention policy.
The opinion cites a 2001 Supreme Court finding referenced by the majority that constitutional protections can extend to noncitizens in custody; the citation undergirds the panel’s view that due process requires meaningful review when liberty is substantially impaired.
DHS response and outside reactions
The Department of Homeland Security said it disagrees with the ruling and is “confident in its legal position regarding mandatory detention,” according to reporting. DHS indicated it may seek further review to preserve its interpretation and operational policies.
Rebecca Cassler, a lawyer with the American Immigration Council representing the migrants, told Reuters she was “delighted that the panel recognized the core constitutional principle that the due process clause does not allow the government to lock them away indefinitely.” Advocates said the ruling could change how immigration judges and ICE handle prolonged detention in the Fifth Circuit, while government lawyers signaled they would press the question on appeal.
What comes next
The split decision increases the likelihood that the issue will reach the U.S. Supreme Court. The administration has recently asked the Supreme Court to review a similar appeals-court ruling, and parties in this case are expected to consider seeking review to resolve differing circuit approaches.
If the Supreme Court takes up the question, it could establish a nationwide rule on when bond hearings must be offered to detainees held more than 90 days. In the near term, the ruling means detainees in the Fifth Circuit may be eligible for bond hearings, and immigration courts can expect increased motions seeking release conditions.
Reporting indicates the decision could affect thousands of migrants currently in ICE custody within the circuit, though available accounts do not provide a precise, court-verified count. The exact numeric impact will depend on how many current cases meet the decision’s factual criteria and on whether the government obtains a stay while appealing.
Background and context
Federal law has long allowed mandatory detention for certain “applicants for admission” while removal proceedings are resolved. In recent years, DHS advanced an interpretation that expanded that category to include some people already inside the United States; the Board of Immigration Appeals adopted aspects of that view. Courts across circuits have reached differing conclusions, producing the split that now draws potential Supreme Court review.
Source attribution
This article is based on reporting from Fox News Digital and Reuters. Original Fox News reporting: Fox News — Appeals court blocks Trump admin from holding migrants without bond for over 90 days. Reuters contributed reporting and quotes referenced above (see Reuters reporting via https://www.reuters.com for related coverage).
