\n<\/p>\n
President Donald Trump’s administration can continue to detain immigrants without bond, marking a major legal victory for the federal immigration agenda and countering a slew of recent<\/a> lower court decisions across the country that argued the practice is illegal.<\/p>\n A panel of judges on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Friday evening that the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to deny bond hearings to immigrants arrested across the country is consistent with the constitution and federal immigration law. <\/p>\n Specifically, circuit judge Edith H. Jones wrote in the 2-1 majority opinion that the government correctly interpreted the Immigration and Nationality Act by asserting that \u201cunadmitted aliens apprehended anywhere in the United States are ineligible for release on bond, regardless of how long they have resided inside the United States.”<\/p>\n Under past administrations, most noncitizens<\/a> with no criminal record who were arrested away<\/a> from the border had an opportunity to request a bond hearing while their cases wound through immigration court. Historically, bond was often granted to those without criminal convictions who were not flight risks, and mandatory detention was limited to recent border crossers.<\/p>\n “That prior Administrations decided to use less than their full enforcement authority under” the law \u201cdoes not mean they lacked the authority to do more,\u201d Jones wrote.<\/p>\n The plaintiffs in the two separate cases filed last year against the Trump administration were both Mexican nationals who had both lived in the United States for over 10 years and weren’t flight risks, their attorneys argued. Neither man had a criminal record, and both were jailed for months last year before a lower Texas court granted them bond in October.<\/p>\n The Trump White House reversed that policy in favor of mandatory detention in July, reversing almost 30 years of precedent under both Democrat and Republican administrations. <\/p>\n Friday’s ruling also bucks a November district court decision in California<\/a>, which granted detained immigrants with no criminal history the opportunity to request a bond hearing and had implications for noncitizens held in detention nationwide.<\/p>\n Circuit Judge Dana M. Douglas wrote the lone dissent in Friday’s decision. <\/p>\n The elected congress members who passed the Immigration and Nationality Act \u201cwould be surprised to learn it had also required the detention without bond of two million people,\u201d Douglas wrote, adding that many of the people detained are \u201cthe spouses, mothers, fathers, and grandparents of American citizens.\u201d<\/p>\n She went on to argue that the federal government was overriding the lawmaking process with DHS’ new immigration detention policy that denies detained immigrants bond. <\/p>\n \u201cBecause I would reject the government\u2019s invitation to rubber stamp its proposed legislation by executive fiat, I dissent,\u201d Douglas wrote.<\/p>\n Douglas’ opinion echoed widespread tensions between the Trump administration and federal judges around the country, who have increasingly<\/a> accused the administration of flouting court orders. <\/p>\n U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi celebrated the decision as \u201ca significant blow against activist judges who have been undermining our efforts to make America safe again at every turn.”<\/p>\n \u201cWe will continue vindicating President Trump\u2019s law and order agenda in courtrooms across the country,\u201d Bondi wrote on the social media platform X. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n