A federal appeals court has ruled that immigrants detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement cannot be held for more than 90 days without a bond hearing, dealing a significant setback to one of the Trump administration’s central immigration enforcement tools. The 5th Circuit decision could affect thousands of detainees across Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, and adds to a growing circuit split that appears headed for the Supreme Court. The ruling comes as ICE detention numbers have surged to record levels under the administration’s expanded mandatory detention policy.
Story Highlights
- The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that ICE cannot detain immigrants beyond 90 days without a bond hearing
- The decision affects three men from Mexico and Honduras who had lived in the U.S. for over a decade with no criminal records
- Six federal appeals circuits have now ruled against the mandatory detention policy in whole or in part, while two have upheld it
- The Trump administration had already asked the Supreme Court to review a similar ruling before this decision was issued
What Happened
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in New Orleans, ruled 2-1 on Thursday that the federal government cannot detain immigrants under its mandatory detention policy for more than 90 days without providing them a bond hearing before an immigration judge. The ruling directly addressed a constitutional question left open by an earlier February decision from a separate panel of the same circuit, which had upheld the administration’s broader interpretation of mandatory detention law but did not resolve whether due process required a path to bond hearings.
Writing for the majority, Circuit Judge Leslie Southwick held that the Constitution’s due process protections extend to long-term U.S. residents, even those who entered the country without formal inspection. The case centered on three men, two from Mexico and one from Honduras, who had each lived in the United States for more than a decade, had no criminal records, and were fathers to U.S. citizen children. All three were detained following traffic stops in Texas and challenged their prolonged detention through habeas corpus petitions after district court judges had already ordered their release.
The Trump administration appealed those district court rulings, arguing that federal law drew no distinction between recent border arrivals and long-term residents already living in the country, and that mandatory detention could therefore apply broadly. The appeals court agreed that the statute itself made no such distinction, but ruled that continued detention beyond 90 days without an individualized hearing would violate constitutional due process protections. Judge James E. Graves Jr., an Obama appointee, concurred in the outcome but wrote separately that even 90 days was too long, describing the conditions faced by detained immigrants as reflecting “an appalling lack of humanity.” Judge Cory Wilson, a Trump appointee, dissented, arguing the majority was overstepping Congress’s authority over immigration law.
The ruling arrives amid a dramatic expansion of ICE detention capacity under the Trump administration. As of April 2026, more than 60,000 people were held in ICE custody on any given day, a 75 percent increase since Trump took office, according to data compiled by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University. Texas holds the largest detained population of any state. The policy driving this expansion originated in 2025, when the Department of Homeland Security adopted a broader interpretation of immigration law classifying long-term U.S. residents as “applicants for admission,” subjecting them to the same mandatory detention rules applied to individuals arrested at the border. The Justice Department’s Board of Immigration Appeals formally endorsed that interpretation in September, prompting immigration judges nationwide to begin ordering mandatory detention broadly.
Why It Matters
This ruling represents the most significant judicial check yet on one of the administration’s central immigration enforcement mechanisms. By requiring individualized bond hearings after 90 days, the court has reintroduced a meaningful, if limited, judicial safeguard into a system that had increasingly relied on indefinite detention without case-by-case review.
The decision matters enormously for the tens of thousands of people currently held without a clear path to release. According to reporting from affected states, hundreds of habeas petitions have piled up in overloaded federal courts, with some detainees held more than a year without any ruling on the merits of their case. The ruling does not guarantee release for any individual, but it does guarantee an opportunity to make the case for release before an immigration judge, a substantial procedural shift from the status quo.
The case also highlights an emerging and consequential circuit split, with six federal appeals courts now having ruled against the mandatory detention policy in whole or in part, while two have upheld it. Such a divide among circuits typically signals that the Supreme Court will eventually be forced to resolve the underlying legal question nationwide, and the timing here is especially notable given that the administration filed its own petition asking the high court to endorse mandatory detention just days before this ruling was issued.
For immigrant families and communities across Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, the practical stakes are immediate and substantial, offering many long-term residents who were swept into detention following minor infractions like traffic stops their first real opportunity to argue for release while their cases proceed.
Economic and Global Context
ICE detention operations have expanded into a sprawling, costly enterprise under the current administration. The scale of detention growth, a 75 percent increase in daily population since Trump took office, has required significant federal spending on facility capacity, private contractor services, and staffing, with costs likely to continue rising as arrest numbers climb. According to reporting citing federal enforcement data, agents made roughly 10,000 immigration arrests over a single five-day period in June as part of an intensified nationwide crackdown.
The reliance on private contractors to manage this expanded detention population has drawn scrutiny from advocacy groups, who argue that oversight has not kept pace with the rapid buildup. Texas, as the state with the largest detained population, bears a disproportionate share of both the fiscal and administrative burden associated with the policy’s implementation.
Internationally, the ruling and the broader mandatory detention debate feed into ongoing diplomatic friction with Mexico and Central American governments over the treatment of their nationals in U.S. custody, an issue that has periodically complicated broader bilateral cooperation on trade and border security matters.
Implications
The most immediate consequence will likely be a wave of new bond hearing requests from detainees within the 5th Circuit’s jurisdiction, covering Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, as attorneys move quickly to invoke the ruling on behalf of long-held clients. Immigration courts in the region should expect a substantial procedural workload increase in the near term.
For the Trump administration, the ruling strengthens the urgency of its pending Supreme Court petition, since a nationwide resolution would eliminate the current patchwork in which detention rules vary significantly depending on jurisdiction. Given the deep circuit split, Supreme Court review appears increasingly likely in the coming term.
For Congress, the case renews pressure to legislate clearer standards for immigration detention, an area where courts have been left to referee constitutional questions in the absence of updated statutory guidance. Advocacy groups on both sides of the immigration debate are expected to intensify lobbying efforts as the Supreme Court weighs whether to take up the underlying question.
Sources
