A major appeals court decision is expected to bolster the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement efforts by allowing easier detention of people who illegally cross the southern border.

The conservative-leaning U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld on Feb. 6 the federal government’s policy requiring detention without bond hearings, which determine whether someone can be released while their case is pending.

The Feb. 6 ruling affects only Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, but is likely to be appealed, possibly all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Several courts across the country have blocked the policy. However, if other federal courts of appeals adopt the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning, the Trump administration will be able to expand its policy to other states.

The Ruling

In a 2–1 vote, a panel of judges held that lower court decisions requiring bond hearings conflicted with the federal Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

The decision was based on a portion of the INA that says individuals seeking admission “shall be detained” if an immigration officer determines they are “not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted.”

The government had argued that two noncitizen detainees fell under this provision because they entered illegally years ago and hadn’t shown they were entitled to be admitted. The detainees had argued they were no longer “seeking admission” because they had already entered the country.

The Fifth Circuit rejected that argument, however, and said that they were still the type of individuals who were subject to detention under the INA. The judges also said the government’s position was “correct,” given the wording of the INA, its history, and congressional intent.

This represents a dramatic change in federal policy, David Super, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, told The Epoch Times.

The position that illegal immigrants apprehended in the interior of the United States may be held without bond “has not been the policy of any prior administration, including the first Trump administration,” he said.

American Immigration Council attorney Sara Gomez criticized the ruling, which she said has “staggering ramifications” for “millions of noncitizens” who face mandatory detention with no opportunity for a bond hearing.

Matt Crapo, director of litigation at the Immigration Reform Law Institute, which favors greater restrictions on immigration, told The Epoch Times the Fifth Circuit’s ruling was “a good decision that accurately interpreted the law.”

Impact on Enforcement

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi praised the ruling for going against “activist judges who have been undermining our efforts to make America safe again at every turn.”

Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani said if the panel’s ruling prevails, “that’s going to completely change how” the cases for millions of illegal immigrants are handled.

If detainees are released, the government has to hope people will appear for their immigration proceedings, he said.

Keeping individuals detained gives the government “all the leverage,” making it easier to convince detainees to self-deport instead of waiting months or longer for an immigration hearing they’ll probably lose, Rahmani told The Epoch Times.

Crapo also said the ruling may boost enforcement efforts because individuals in immigration detention typically don’t show up for their hearings after release.

Super said the decision will generally provide “considerable help to the administration” by preventing courts in the three affected states from ordering the release of allegedly illegal immigrants.

Appeals Are Likely

So far, multiple lower courts have issued decisions conflicting with the Fifth Circuit’s decision. Noting those decisions, Rahmani said there was “no question” the Fifth Circuit ruling would be appealed and possibly reach the Supreme Court.

Complicating matters, two federal district court judges in Texas, who are required to follow Fifth Circuit precedent, issued rulings days after the panel’s decision in which they found immigration detainees could still be released on due process grounds.

They held detainees may still have a so-called liberty interest that the Constitution does not allow to be taken away without a hearing by a neutral judge.

Super said these two court decisions were not affected by the Fifth Circuit ruling.

When dealing with an individual interest as important as personal liberty, the government “will face considerable difficulties persuading courts that it need not offer any hearing at all,” he said.

Rahmani said the two judges’ decisions that a detainee’s liberty interest may require release creates a “mess,” because district judges are supposed to follow rulings by their circuit courts.

Reuters contributed to this report.

This article by Matthew Vadum (deemed an “explainer”) appeared Feb. 19, 2026, in The Epoch Times.