On Friday, February 6, 2026, the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals handed the Trump administration a sweeping legal victory, upholding a controversial policy that permits the indefinite detention of millions of undocumented immigrants—including those who have lived in the United States for decades—without the opportunity to seek release through bond hearings. The 2-1 decision, which applies to Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, marks a dramatic reversal of longstanding immigration practice and sets the stage for an impending showdown at the Supreme Court.
The policy at the heart of the case, introduced by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in July 2025, reinterpreted a decades-old statute. Previously, immigrants apprehended away from the border and lacking criminal records were typically eligible for bond hearings, allowing them to argue before an immigration judge that they posed no flight risk and should await the outcome of their deportation proceedings outside detention. Only recent border crossers and those convicted of certain crimes faced mandatory detention without bond.
But the Trump administration’s new approach, as reported by Politico and CBS News, swept away these distinctions. Under the revised interpretation, anyone targeted for deportation by ICE—regardless of how long they have lived in the US or their criminal history—could be classified as an “applicant for admission” and subjected to mandatory detention without bond. The only way out would be if ICE itself chose to grant parole on humanitarian or public interest grounds, a rare occurrence by all accounts.
This seismic policy shift triggered a wave of arrests and detentions, as well as a flood of lawsuits from detainees and advocates who argued that the administration was violating due process. According to Politico, a review of thousands of ICE detention cases revealed that at least 360 federal judges had rejected the expanded detention strategy in more than 3,000 cases, while just 27 judges backed it in about 130 cases. The overwhelming majority of those siding with the administration were Trump appointees.
Despite this judicial headwind, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals broke with the consensus on Friday. The majority opinion was authored by Judge Edith Jones, a Reagan appointee, and joined by Judge Kyle Duncan, who was nominated by former President Trump. Their decision reversed two lower court orders and contradicted thousands of district court rulings nationwide.
“That prior Administrations decided to use less than their full enforcement authority … does not mean they lacked the authority to do more,” Judge Jones wrote for the majority. “The text says what it says, regardless of the decisions of prior Administrations.” This sentiment was echoed throughout the opinion, as the judges insisted that the executive branch was within its rights to reinterpret the statute to expand the scope of mandatory detention.
Attorney General Pam Bondi, a vocal supporter of the administration’s hardline immigration agenda, celebrated the decision as a “significant blow against activist judges who have been undermining our efforts to make America safe again at every turn.” Her remarks, reported by Politico, underscore the political stakes of the legal battle, as President Trump continues to make immigration enforcement a centerpiece of his campaign and presidency.
Yet the ruling was far from unanimous. Judge Dana Douglas, appointed by President Joe Biden, issued a forceful dissent, warning of the sweeping consequences of the majority’s interpretation. “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 wrote. “No matter that this newly discovered mandate arrives without historical precedent, and in the teeth of one of the core distinctions of immigration law.”
She continued, “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.” Douglas warned that the policy could result in the detention without bond of up to two million noncitizens, including “the spouses, mothers, fathers, and grandparents of American citizens.”
Her dissent also took aim at the majority’s legal reasoning, stating, “Straining at a gnat, the majority swallows a camel. The government’s proposed reading of the statute would mean that, for purposes of immigration detention, the border is now everywhere. That is not the law Congress passed, and if it had, it would have spoken much more clearly.”
The legal battle over the Trump administration’s detention policy is far from over. As noted by Steve Vladeck, a Supreme Court analyst and professor at Georgetown University Law Center, the 5th Circuit is considered the most conservative appeals court in the country, and the government strategically chose it for its first appeal on the issue. “It’s hard to imagine they’re going to get the last word,” Vladeck told CNN. Other appellate courts, including the 7th Circuit, have signaled opposition to the administration’s stance, and challenges to the policy are pending across nearly every circuit in the country.
At the heart of the controversy is a 30-year-old immigration statute requiring the detention—without bond—of all “applicants for admission” while they are seeking entry into the United States. For decades, both Republican and Democratic administrations interpreted this provision to apply primarily to recent arrivals at the border, not to long-term residents living in the country’s interior. The Trump administration’s reinterpretation, spearheaded by ICE Director Todd Lyons and backed by the Board of Immigration Appeals, upended this long-held distinction.
The practical impact of the 5th Circuit’s ruling is immediate and profound for immigrants in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Many who had previously been allowed to remain free on bond while their cases were reviewed now face the prospect of indefinite detention. The decision has also sparked protests and heightened tensions nationwide, as illustrated by the arrest of a student protester at the University of Minnesota during an anti-ICE demonstration on the day of the ruling.
With the Supreme Court likely to weigh in soon, the fate of millions of immigrants—and the future contours of US immigration enforcement—hangs in the balance. For now, the 5th Circuit’s decision stands as a stark reminder of the power of judicial interpretation and the deep divisions that continue to shape America’s immigration debate.