Trump immigration win could strengthen admin’s hand in looming Supreme Court fight
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that three detained immigrants who were never formally admitted to the United States have no constitutional right to bond hearings, even after living in the country for years or decades. The decision may influence a forthcoming Supreme Court case over whether federal law requires mandatory detention for some long-term residents arrested inside the country.
A 9-2 split among federal appeals courts centres on which law applies: the Fifth and Eighth Circuits say Section 1225 requires detention without an ordinary bond hearing, while nine other circuits say Section 1226 allows immigrants to seek bond. The Supreme Court case, Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, concerns a Brazilian national detained in 2025 after entering illegally about two decades earlier. A ruling for the Second Circuit could give him and the three men in the Fifth Circuit case a route to seek bond; the Fifth Circuit decision could also bolster the administration’s argument by easing concerns that its interpretation raises constitutional problems.
In short
- Fifth Circuit says three immigrants are not constitutionally entitled to bond hearings.
- The Supreme Court will consider which federal detention law applies.
- Nine circuits favour access to bond; two support mandatory detention.
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Those who favour the Fifth Circuit’s reading argue that people who were never formally admitted remain subject to the detention rules Congress set for those seeking entry, and that Section 1225 requires detention while their immigration cases proceed. Applying one rule consistently could support orderly enforcement and avoid courts creating bond procedures that Congress did not provide.
The case against
Those who favour the other circuits’ reading argue that Section 1226 governs people arrested inside the country, including long-term residents, and permits an individual bond hearing rather than automatic detention. They contend that years or decades of residence make a meaningful chance to show a person is not a flight risk or danger especially important, and that this reading better fits the law’s distinction between people seeking admission and those already living in the United States.