Fifth Circuit rules Trump mandatory detention policy constitutional

The full Fifth Circuit reversed a three-judge panel's ruling that a Trump administration policy denying bond hearings for all immigrants who entered the country unlawfully regardless of how long they've been in the U.S. violates due process. (CN) — The full Fifth Circuit ruled Friday that immigrants who entered the country unlawfully have no constitutional right to a bond hearing to challenge their immigration detention, upholding the constitutionality of a controversial Trump administration policy requiring mandatory detention for all unauthorized immigrants regardless of how long they've been in the U.S.In an opinion by U.S. Circuit Judge Cory Wilson, a Donald Trump appointee, the majority reversed a three-judge panel’s finding that the mandatory detention policy was unconstitutional as applied to three immigrants who had each been in the country for more than a decade.A separate Fifth Circuit panel previously found that immigrants who enter without authorization are “applicants for admission” who may be denied bond hearings under federal immigration law, regardless of how long they have been in the U.S. That decision conflicts with rulings from nine other circuits.Wilson said that finding also decides the constitutional issue."Because petitioners have never been admitted to the United States, due process does not entitle them to additional proceedings beyond what Congress has provided before they may be detained pending removal," he wrote.He also wrote that whether the immigrants are a flight risk or pose a danger to the public is legally irrelevant to whether they may be detained under the statute.In a dissent joined by five judges, U.S. Circuit Judge Leslie Southwick wrote that mandatory detention implicates immigrants’ right to be free from physical restraint and that the government must show a legitimate reason for detaining someone."The majority is saying that these individuals have no fundamental interest in freedom from physical detention because of their illegal presence. I cannot agree,” the George W. Bush appointee wrote.U.S. Circuit Judge Catharina Haynes, also a Bush appointee, agreed with the “basic points” of Southwick’s dissent but would limit its constitutional holding “to people like petitioners—individuals who have resided in this country for more than ten years, have no criminal history and have close American relatives.”In a separate dissent joined by five judges, U.S. Circuit Judge Stephen Higginson, a Barack Obama appointee, wrote that the prior panel’s statutory ruling was incorrect and the mandatory detention policy does not comply with immigration law.Department of Homeland Security General Counsel James Percival praised the Fifth Circuit's ruling in a post on X."Big win in the Fifth Circuit on mandatory detention for illegal aliens, a principle codified in 1996 legislation but ignored by the deep state for decades," he said.Meanwhile, Rebecca Cassler, an attorney with the American Immigration Council who represents the three immigrants challenging the policy, called the ruling "an affront to the U.S. Constitution.""The principle at stake here is simple: if the government wants to detain someone, it has to explain why depriving them of their liberty is necessary. And anyone who is detained has the right to ask a judge for review of that detention," Cassler said in a statement. "Instead, this ruling allows the government to lock people up when detention plainly serves no purpose, and without any way to challenge it.”The dispute centers on two provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. One applies to “applicants for admission,” defined as “an alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States.” Migrants detained under this provision face mandatory detention.A separate provision governs deportation proceedings more generally and allows the government to release detainees on bond during removal proceedings. Federal regulations allow those detained under this provision to request a bond hearing before an immigration judge.For decades, the federal government treated noncitizens detained at or shortly after crossing the border as applicants for admission subject to mandatory detention, while immigrants detained within the country were entitled to bond hearings.Last year, however, the Trump administration shifted its policy, treating anyone who entered the U.S. without lawful admission as an “applicant for admission” subject to detention without a bond hearing, regardless of how long they had been in the country.The shift triggered an avalanche of federal habeas proceedings challenging the denial of bond hearings. The administration has largely lost those challenges: Judges appointed by presidents across the ideological spectrum have ruled the policy illegal or unconstitutional in more than 20,000 cases, according to a Politico analysis, and nine of the 11 federal appeals courts to address the issue have ruled against the administration.Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would hear a case on whether the mandatory detention policy complies with the Immigration and Nationality Act. Subscribe to our free newsletters Our weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts. Additional Reads