Fifth Circuit rules illegal immigrants not entitled to bond hearings

The Trump administration scored a major victory Friday before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that detained illegal immigrants who have never been formally admitted to the United States are not constitutionally entitled to a bond hearing while awaiting deportation.

The decision comes as the Supreme Court prepares to hear Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha this term, a closely related fight over whether federal mandatory detention law applies to long-term immigrants arrested inside the country — opening the possibility that judges could either undermine Friday’s ruling or strengthen the government’s hand.

The Fifth Circuit answered the constitutional question in Ignacio Sosnava Rodriguez v. Sylvester M. Ortega, finding that three immigrant men detained under the mandatory detention law are not entitled to bond hearings under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. The court held that their years or even decades of residence in the United States, as well as their ties to the country and their communities, do not create a constitutional right to a bond hearing.

“The Constitution does not entitle them to a bond hearing,” the court wrote.

FEDERAL APPEALS COURT COMPARES TRUMP’S MIGRANT DETENTION POLICY TO JAPANESE-AMERICAN INTERNMENT

Dozens of immigrants are detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents inside the Federal Plaza courthouse in New York on Thursday, June 26, 2025, following their court proceedings. (Lokman Vural Elibol/Anadolu via Getty Images)

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court will review Rhoney, a case out of the Second Circuit, to determine whether the mandatory detention law applies in the first place to long-time immigrants arrested inside the country.

At the center of the issue is a 9-2 circuit finding that federal detention law applies to immigrants who entered the country illegally, were never formally admitted and were later arrested by immigration authorities after living in the United States for years — sometimes decades after crossing the border.

The Fifth and Eighth Circuits have held that these immigrants remain “applicants for admission” under Section 1225 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, subjecting them to mandatory detention without a regular bond hearing while their removal proceedings proceed. Nine other federal appeals courts ruled that Section 1226 applied instead, allowing them to seek bail.

The Supreme Court will essentially decide whether immigrants who entered illegally and have lived in the United States for years can be subject to the same mandatory detention provisions that apply to some immigrants seeking admission to the country.

If the Supreme Court sides with the Second Circuit, Barbosa da Cunha — a Brazilian national who entered the country illegally about two decades ago and is detained in 2025 — would have the opportunity to seek release on bail. Such a ruling would likely also apply to the three longtime immigrants at the Rodriguez center, significantly reducing the significance of Friday’s ruling by eliminating the need to answer the constitutional question of whether due process requires a bond hearing.

SUPREME COURT FIGHTS TRUMP’S POLICY OF ILLEGAL EXPULSION OF FOREIGNERS TO THIRD COUNTRIES

The United States Supreme Court in Washington, DC, USA, on Tuesday, November 4, 2025. (Pete Kiehart/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

In her dissent, Justice Leslie Southwick directly pointed to the looming fight before the Supreme Court.

If the Supreme Court were ultimately to determine that it was wrong about the law, the constitutional question we address here would be of much less importance. It certainly matters right now,” Southwick wrote.

But conservative legal experts say Rodriguez could also strengthen the administration’s hand in Rhoney by undermining an argument against the government’s interpretation of Section 1225: that applying the mandatory detention provision to longtime residents would raise serious constitutional concerns.

Michael Morley, a constitutional law professor at Florida State University, said Friday’s ruling could influence how the justices approach this issue, because courts often consider whether a particular interpretation of federal law would create constitutional problems.

FEDERAL APPEALS COURT DEALS BLOW TO TRUMP DEPORTATION PLAN

U.S. federal agents working for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrest immigrants and asylum seekers who appear in immigration court at the U.S. Immigration Court at the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building in New York, New York, Thursday, July 24, 2025. (Getty Images)

“The Fifth Circuit’s en banc decision in Rodriguez today takes the next step in holding that such detention would not violate the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution,” Morley said. “This decision could impact the Supreme Court’s reasoning, because an important consideration in litigation over federal laws is whether a particular interpretation would be unconstitutional.”

“If the Court agrees with the Fifth Circuit’s analysis that the Due Process Clause authorizes such detention, it may be more likely to conclude that federal law also authorizes it,” Morley continued.

Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom, argued that the ruling could strengthen the administration as the justices prepare to resolve the circuit split.

“I actually think this decision will help the government in the Rhoney case,” von Spakovsky said, emphasizing the Fifth Circuit’s position that applicable immigration law does not require bond hearings for immigrants who have never been admitted to the United States.

SUBSCRIBE TO RECEIVE THE POLITICS NEWSLETTER

“There was already a division within the circuit courts on this issue, but the Fifth Circuit has consistently held that applicable immigration law does not require bond hearings for aliens who have never been admitted to the United States,” he said. “I will be surprised if a majority of the Supreme Court disagrees when it finally issues a decision in the Rhoney case.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The Supreme Court has not yet scheduled oral arguments in the Rhoney case, which it agreed to hear earlier this month.