A federal appellate court issued a significant ruling on Thursday, stipulating that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) cannot hold immigrants for more than 90 days without providing them an opportunity to seek release on bond while their deportation proceedings are pending.
In a 2-1 decision, the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found against the federal administration, a judgment that could potentially impact thousands of immigrants who have been detained by ICE agents in states within the court's jurisdiction, including Texas and Louisiana.
Judicial Reasoning and Dissent
Writing for the majority, Judge Leslie Southwick explained that the U.S. Supreme Court determined in 2001 that the due process clause of the Constitution safeguards all individuals, including the two Mexican citizens and one Honduran whose specific cases were central to this legal challenge.
"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," Southwick wrote.
In a dissenting opinion, Judge Cory Wilson contended that the majority's ruling "marginalizes the Constitution's express grant of plenary authority over immigration matters to Congress."
It is worth noting that a different panel of the same court had previously been the first in the nation to support the administration's novel interpretation of a federal immigration statute. This interpretation allows for the mandatory detention of non-citizens already residing in the U.S.
However, that earlier ruling, delivered in February, did not address whether the Fifth Amendment's due process protections require offering immigrants a chance to seek release on bond by appearing before an immigration judge.
Broader Implications and Government Stance
Rebecca Cassler, an attorney representing the migrants at the American Immigration Council, expressed approval of the decision. In a statement, she conveyed that the group is "delighted that the panel recognized the core constitutional principle that the due process clause does not allow the government to lock them away indefinitely."
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a statement indicating its disagreement with the ruling, asserting that it remains "confident in its legal position regarding mandatory detention."
Just last week, the administration had formally requested the Supreme Court to review a similar ruling handed down by a different appeals court.
Shifting Interpretations of Immigration Law
Federal immigration law stipulates that "applicants for admission" to the country are subject to mandatory detention while their cases progress through immigration courts, thereby rendering them ineligible for bond hearings.
Despite a long-established understanding of immigration law, the Department of Homeland Security claimed last year that non-citizens already present in the U.S. also qualify as "applicants for admission" subject to mandatory detention. This expanded interpretation moves beyond the traditional application only to individuals arriving at the border.
In September, the Board of Immigration Appeals, which is a component of the Justice Department, announced its adoption of the Department of Homeland Security's interpretation.
Following this adoption, immigration judges across the country, employed by the Justice Department, began issuing orders for mandatory detention based on this revised understanding.
