The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has upheld a key part of the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement strategy. In a 2-1 decision issued on February 6, 2026, the court ruled that the government can require mandatory detention for many undocumented immigrants arrested inside the United States, without giving them a chance to request release on bond while their deportation cases proceed.
This marks the first time an appeals court has supported the policy. It contrasts sharply with rulings from hundreds of lower federal judges across the country, who have found the approach unlawful in thousands of individual cases.
The policy stems from a reinterpretation of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA). Under long-standing practice by previous administrations—including Trump’s first term—undocumented immigrants who entered the country illegally but were later arrested far from the border could often seek bond hearings before an immigration judge. Those without criminal records or flight risks were frequently released on bond pending their cases.
The Trump administration shifted this approach last year. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Board of Immigration Appeals argued that federal law treats any non-citizen present in the U.S. without formal admission as an “applicant for admission.” This category, under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), requires mandatory detention during removal proceedings, with no eligibility for bond. Previously, this strict rule applied mainly to people stopped at ports of entry or shortly after crossing the border.
The Fifth Circuit’s conservative majority—led by Judge Edith Jones (appointed by Ronald Reagan) and joined by Judge Kyle Duncan (appointed by Donald Trump)—agreed with the administration. Judge Jones wrote that the law’s text is clear: “unadmitted aliens apprehended anywhere in the United States are ineligible for release on bond, regardless of how long they have resided inside the United States.” She added that past administrations simply chose not to use the full extent of their enforcement powers. “That prior administrations decided to use less than their full enforcement authority does not mean they lacked the authority to do more,” she stated.
The ruling came in two consolidated cases involving Mexican nationals Victor Buenrostro-Mendez and Jose Padron Covarrubias. Both men had lived in the U.S. for over a decade without criminal records. Lower courts in Texas had granted them bond hearings, but the appeals court reversed those decisions.
Judge Dana Douglas, appointed by Joe Biden, dissented strongly. She argued that Congress in 1996 never intended to impose mandatory detention on millions of people already living in the U.S. interior. “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. She warned that the decision erases a core distinction in immigration law between border arrivals and those in the country’s interior. In her view, the majority’s interpretation effectively makes “the border… everywhere” for detention purposes.
The ruling directly affects immigrants in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi—the states under the Fifth Circuit’s jurisdiction—where many detention centers are located. It could impact thousands of detainees. Attorney General Pam Bondi praised the decision on social media as “a significant blow against activist judges” and a “crucial legal victory” for the administration’s efforts to enforce immigration laws.
Legal experts note that the Fifth Circuit is considered one of the most conservative appeals courts. Analyst Steve Vladeck pointed out that the administration strategically brought its first appeal to this court, where it drew a favorable panel.
The decision sets up potential review by other appeals courts and, likely, the U.S. Supreme Court. Until then, the policy remains in place in the Fifth Circuit’s region, while challenges continue elsewhere. The broader debate highlights tensions between strict statutory readings and long-practiced enforcement policies that balanced security with due process considerations.