A federal appeals court has upheld a Trump-era policy allowing immigration authorities to detain undocumented immigrants indefinitely without bond hearings during deportation proceedings, issuing a decision that could affect millions of cases nationwide.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled 2–1 that the government’s interpretation of immigration law — which permits mandatory detention while removal cases are pending — is lawful. The decision reverses earlier rulings from two district courts that had found the policy unlawful.
Under the ruling, immigrants who entered the United States unlawfully and are facing deportation may be held without access to routine bond hearings before immigration judges until their cases are resolved, a process that can take months or years.
The decision applies immediately in the Fifth Circuit’s jurisdiction, which includes Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi — states that house the nation’s largest concentration of immigration detention facilities. The ruling may also influence similar cases pending in other federal courts.
Two plaintiffs at the center of the case, Victor Buenrostro-Mendez and Jose Padron Covarrubias, both Mexican nationals, had entered the United States illegally in 2009 and 2001, respectively. After their detention in 2025, both men requested bond hearings before immigration judges. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement denied those requests, citing a September 2025 decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals that adopted a new interpretation of long-standing immigration statutes.
The ruling marks the first time an appellate court has upheld the mandatory detention policy. It directly contradicts dozens of district court decisions nationwide in which judges had ruled that similar practices were unlawful.
Supporters of the policy say the decision strengthens the government’s ability to enforce immigration laws without releasing individuals into the community during protracted legal proceedings. Advocates for immigrants’ rights have criticized the ruling as a departure from traditional detention standards.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs indicated they are considering further legal options, including a potential appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, although no appeal has yet been filed.
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal courts lack the authority to review visa revocations in cases involving sham marriages for immigration purposes, affirming that such decisions fall under the discretion of the Department of Homeland Security.
The unanimous ruling clarified that while courts may review initial visa denials, they do not have the authority to intervene after the Department of Homeland Security revokes an approved visa.
The decision highlights DHS’s broad authority in visa matters and could impact immigration enforcement, including President Trump’s plans to overhaul immigration policies and carry out mass deportations.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, an appointee of President Joe Biden, wrote for the court and described the decision as “a quintessential grant of discretion” to the DHS.
“Congress did not impose specific criteria or conditions limiting this authority, nor did it prescribe how or when the Secretary must act. Context reinforces the discretionary nature of §1155,” the majority wrote, referring to the statute surrounding the revocation of approved visa petitions.
“Section 1155 is a quintessential grant of discretion: The Secretary ‘may’ revoke a previously approved visa petition ‘at any time’ for what the Secretary deems ‘good and sufficient cause,’” the 9-0 ruling said.
The case, Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, involved Amina Bouarfa, a U.S. citizen whose husband’s visa was revoked after the DHS determined he had previously been involved in a fraudulent marriage, permanently disqualifying him from legal residency.
During oral arguments, the justices focused on a statute restricting judicial review to initial visa denials, highlighting Congress’s intent to uphold the Department of Homeland Security’s authority in revocation decisions.
Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out that Bouarfa’s husband could reapply for a visa and potentially challenge a denial through judicial review. However, the petitioner’s attorney, Samir Deger-Sen, countered that restarting the process imposes significant delays and hardships on families, the Examiner reported.