Appeals Court Backs Mandatory Detention Policy in Immigration Crackdown

A divided federal appeals court has upheld the Trump administration’s policy requiring mandatory detention without bond for certain immigrants arrested during enforcement operations, marking the first time an appellate court has backed the controversial approach. In a 2–1 decision, the New Orleans–based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that individuals deemed “applicants for admission” under federal law can be held in custody while their immigration cases proceed, even if they were already living in the United States. The ruling comes despite numerous lower-court judges across the country previously finding the policy unlawful.

The decision was welcomed by Pam Bondi, who said it delivered a significant setback to what she described as “activist judges” interfering with enforcement efforts. The Fifth Circuit’s jurisdiction covers Texas and Louisiana, states that host large numbers of immigration detention facilities, meaning the ruling could affect thousands of detainees. Other federal appeals courts are expected to address similar challenges in the coming weeks, raising the possibility that the issue could ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

At the center of the dispute is the administration’s interpretation of the 1996 immigration law, which mandates detention for “applicants for admission.” The U.S. Department of Homeland Security argued the term applies not only to people arriving at the border but also to certain non-citizens already inside the country. The Board of Immigration Appeals adopted that view last year, prompting immigration judges to deny bond hearings. Writing for the majority, Judge Edith Jones said the statute’s text supports the administration’s position, while dissenting Judge Dana Douglas argued Congress likely never intended such sweeping mandatory detention.

Pic Courtesy: google/ images are subject to copyright