On February 7, 2026, a seismic shift in the landscape of U.S. immigration enforcement took place when the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a 2-1 decision upholding the Trump administration's policy of detaining nearly all undocumented immigrants targeted for deportation—without the opportunity for bond hearings. The ruling, which applies to Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, marks the first time an appeals court has backed a policy that has been widely rejected by lower courts and signals a potentially pivotal moment in the ongoing legal battles over immigration in the United States.
For decades, the prevailing practice under both Democratic and Republican administrations allowed many immigrants—particularly those without criminal records, apprehended away from the border, and living in the U.S. for years or even decades—to be released on bond while their cases wound through the immigration courts. As reported by Politico, this longstanding approach was upended by the Trump administration, which argued that federal law gives the government sweeping authority to detain anyone who entered the country illegally, regardless of how long ago or their ties to the community.
Friday’s majority opinion, authored by Judge Edith Jones (a Reagan appointee) and joined by Judge Kyle Duncan (appointed by Trump), asserted that the administration’s interpretation of the law was not only permissible but within the full scope of executive power. In their view, prior restraint shown by earlier administrations did not limit current officials from using the law’s full enforcement potential. As Judge Jones wrote, “That prior administrations decided to use less than their full enforcement authority … does not mean they lacked the authority to do more.” This sentiment was echoed in the panel’s formal opinion: “The text says what it says, regardless of the decisions of prior Administrations.”
Under the new policy, immigrants detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) are denied the chance to argue before an immigration judge that they are not a flight risk and should be allowed to fight their deportation outside of detention. The only remaining path to release is if ICE itself decides to grant parole on humanitarian or public interest grounds—a rare occurrence under the administration’s current approach. As CBS News and Politico both highlighted, this represents a dramatic departure from previous practice, which limited mandatory detention primarily to recent border crossers and those with certain criminal convictions.
The implications of the ruling are vast. According to CNN, the decision means that scores of immigrants who had previously been allowed to remain free on bond while their cases proceeded—including those who have lived in the U.S. for decades—can now be detained indefinitely without the opportunity for a hearing. Judge Dana Douglas, a Biden appointee and the lone dissenter on the panel, warned that the majority’s interpretation could result in the detention without bond of up to two million noncitizens. In her dissenting opinion, Douglas wrote, “The government today asserts the authority and mandate to detain millions of noncitizens in the interior, some of them present here for decades, on the same terms as if they were apprehended at the border.”
Douglas’s dissent went further, pointing out that the new mandate arrived “without historical precedent, and in the teeth of one of the core distinctions of immigration law.” She observed, “No matter that this newly discovered mandate arrives without historical precedent ... The majority seems to be unable to imagine what it might mean to be detained within the United States without the appropriate proof of admissibility, and, without a bond hearing, to require the services of a federal habeas corpus lawyer to show that one is entitled to release and deserves to see the outside of a detention center again.” Her words captured the human stakes of the ruling, noting that some detainees are “the spouses, mothers, fathers, and grandparents of American citizens.”
The legal journey to this point has been tumultuous. As Politico reported, the Trump administration’s expanded detention policy had been rejected by the vast majority of federal judges nationwide. In more than 3,000 ICE detention cases reviewed, at least 360 judges ruled against the administration’s interpretation, while just 27 judges backed it in about 130 cases. Nevertheless, the 5th Circuit’s decision now stands as a crucial precedent—one that could shape the fate of thousands, if not millions, of immigrants across the country.
Attorney General Pam Bondi, a vocal supporter of the administration’s hardline immigration stance, celebrated the ruling, calling it a “significant blow against activist judges who have been undermining our efforts to make America safe again at every turn.” Her remarks underscore the deep political and ideological divides surrounding the issue. For supporters of the administration, the decision represents a restoration of what they see as necessary enforcement authority to uphold immigration law and protect national security. For critics, it is a stark rollback of due process and humanitarian protections for vulnerable communities.
Legal experts warn that the story is far from over. The 5th Circuit’s ruling applies only within its jurisdiction—Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi—but other appellate courts are still considering similar challenges. According to Steve Vladeck, a Supreme Court analyst quoted by CNN, “It’s hard to imagine they’re going to get the last word.” Indeed, challenges are pending in nearly every appellate circuit, and the 7th Circuit has already signaled opposition to the administration’s view. The likelihood of a Supreme Court showdown looms large, as the nation’s highest court may soon be called upon to resolve the conflicting interpretations of federal immigration law.
For now, the immediate impact is felt most acutely in the southern states covered by the 5th Circuit. Immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for years, built families, and established deep community ties now face the prospect of indefinite detention without the chance to argue for their release. The ruling has sent ripples through legal and immigrant advocacy circles, with many warning of the profound consequences for families and communities.
As the legal battles continue, the fate of millions of undocumented immigrants hangs in the balance. The 5th Circuit’s decision marks a pivotal moment in the nation’s ongoing debate over immigration enforcement, executive authority, and the fundamental rights of noncitizens. Whether this ruling stands or is ultimately overturned by the Supreme Court, the outcome will shape the contours of American immigration policy for years to come.