A federal appeals court ruled on Thursday that U. S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement cannot detain migrants for more than 90 days without providing an opportunity for a bond hearing during pending deportation proceedings.
The 2-1 decision by the 5th U. S.
Circuit Court of Appeals directly impacts thousands of individuals held across Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi under the Trump administration's expanded mass detention policies.
Writing for the court majority, U. S.
Circuit Judge Leslie Southwick emphasized that constitutional due process protections apply to long-term residents inside the country regardless of their legal status.
"The Government may detain aliens under Section 1225(b)(2)(A) for 90 days but no longer without a bond hearing," wrote Judge Southwick.
The ruling stems from a legal challenge brought by three fathers from Mexico and Honduras who had resided in the United States for over a decade without any criminal history before being detained at traffic stops.
"It is part of the historic majesty of this long-ago founding charter that it makes no exceptions in providing basic rights to those within our boundaries, including a right to be heard when personal liberty is taken," wrote Judge Southwick.
The majority noted that these specific individuals faced prolonged custody without an individualized assessment of whether they posed a flight risk or danger to the community.
"These three aliens, who many years ago entered this country without inspection and have been residing here for years, who have no criminal history, and who, as far as we have been informed, have not yet been subject to a removal order, would today have been detained by immigration authorities for an unreasonable time absent the district courts' intervention," wrote Judge Southwick.
Dissenting from the majority, U. S.
Circuit Judge Cory Wilson argued that the ruling improperly interferes with the legal authority granted to the federal legislature over national immigration policies.
"Marginalizes the Constitution's express grant of plenary authority over immigration matters to Congress," dissented Judge Wilson.
Wilson further warned that the decision would overwhelm the regional legal system by allowing local courts to alter established enforcement procedures.
"Today's decision deputizes every district court in our circuit to refashion the removal process as it sees fit, inviting even more chaos into our circuit's overwhelmed immigration dockets," dissented Judge Wilson.
The dissenting judge also expressed disagreement with how the majority applied the standards to the specific petitioners involved in the case.
"And it unleashes this mischief while admitting that, even under its confected standard, at least two of the three Petitioners' habeas claims should have been denied by the district courts," dissented Judge Wilson.
In response to the judicial outcome, legal representatives for the detained migrants expressed satisfaction with the court's validation of fundamental constitutional principles against indefinite government detention.
"Delighted that the panel recognized the core constitutional principle that the due process clause does not allow the government to lock them away indefinitely," said Rebecca Cassler, lawyer at the American Immigration Council.
The Department of Homeland Security stated it disagrees with the ruling and remains confident in its interpretation of mandatory detention laws, which the administration recently asked the Supreme Court to review.
