The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Trump administration cannot detain illegal immigrants for more than 90 days without providing bond hearings. The decision, issued in a 2-1 ruling, applies to three migrants who had lived in the U.S. for over a decade without criminal records and are fathers of U.S. citizen children.
Core Facts and Ruling
The court affirmed lower court rulings that prolonged detention without bond hearings violates the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Judge Leslie Southwick, writing for the majority, stated that the government must justify continued detention after 90 days. The ruling does not halt removal proceedings but requires bond hearings for those detained under the Trump administration's mass detention policy.
Background and Context
The case involved three migrants—two Mexican citizens and one Honduran—who were detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) after traffic stops. The government argued they were subject to mandatory detention under federal immigration law because they had never been legally admitted to the U.S. The court distinguished this case from Supreme Court decisions involving newly arrived migrants, emphasizing that long-term residents are entitled to due process.
Dissenting Opinion
Judge Cory Wilson, a Trump appointee, dissented, arguing that the majority decision marginalized Congress's authority over immigration matters. The dissent contended that the ruling undermined the government's ability to enforce immigration laws effectively.
Broader Implications
The decision could impact thousands of detained migrants in Texas and Louisiana, where the Fifth Circuit has jurisdiction. Advocacy groups, such as the American Immigration Council, welcomed the ruling as a step toward protecting due process rights for migrants. The Trump administration's policy, which expanded mandatory detention, has faced legal challenges over its constitutionality.
Legal Precedents
The court cited a 2001 Supreme Court ruling that affirmed due process protections for all individuals within U.S. boundaries. The decision aligns with broader legal debates over the balance between immigration enforcement and constitutional rights.