Detained migrants have no constitutional right to bond hearings, rules US Court
Babushahi Bureau
Washington DC (US), October 24, 2026: A US federal appeals court has ruled that the government is not constitutionally required to provide detained immigrants with bond hearings to seek release while their deportation proceedings are pending.
In a 10-7 decision on Friday, the full US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, based in New Orleans, held that the due process protections of the Fifth Amendment do not guarantee immigration detainees the right to such hearings.
The ruling applies to Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, the three states within the court’s jurisdiction, and could significantly affect migrants seeking release from immigration detention while challenging their removal from the United States.
The case involved lawsuits filed by two Mexican nationals and one Honduran national. In July, a three-judge panel of the appeals court had ruled that immigration authorities could not constitutionally detain individuals for more than 90 days without providing hearings at which they could seek release on bond.
However, the full court agreed to reconsider the cases and overturned the panel’s decision.
Writing for the majority, US Circuit Judge Cory Wilson said that individuals seeking freedom from physical restraint could leave the country, a position that drew criticism from dissenting judges and immigrant rights advocates.
The ruling comes amid the Trump administration’s expanded immigration enforcement and mass deportation efforts. The US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency has faced numerous legal challenges from migrants arguing that their detention is unlawful.
Supreme Court to consider related legal question
The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear a related case concerning whether federal immigration law requires bond hearings for certain detained migrants. However, the question before the Supreme Court concerns statutory protections, whereas the Fifth Circuit’s latest ruling addresses whether such hearings are required under the Constitution.
The appeals court’s decision could restrict a key legal avenue for detained migrants in the three states to challenge their continued detention, particularly if the Supreme Court separately upholds the administration’s interpretation of federal immigration law.
Ellie Norton, a lawyer representing the migrants through the National Immigration Project, criticised the ruling, warning that it could lead to more people being detained without adequate justification and cause serious harm to families and communities.
James Percival, general counsel for the US Department of Homeland Security, welcomed the decision, describing it as a significant victory for the administration’s mandatory detention policy.
Dissenting from the majority, US Circuit Judge Dana Douglas warned that unchecked executive authority to arrest and detain individuals indefinitely raised serious historical concerns.
The ruling marks a significant development in the ongoing legal battle over the scope of immigration detention powers in the United States.