Appeals court rules US can continue to detain immigrants without bond

Key Takeaways

• An Eighth Circuit panel ruled that the government may detain some noncitizens without a bond hearing, reversing a lower court order.
• The decision follows a similar Fifth Circuit ruling and narrows access to bond hearings for people arrested in the interior of the U.S.
• The ruling hinges on the statutory phrase “applicant for admission” and a novel interpretation that may expand mandatory detention.
• Civil-rights groups say millions could lose routine access to neutral judicial review of immigration detention; the Justice Department celebrates the outcome.

Ruling and legal reasoning

It has been reported that a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in St. Louis held that Joaquin Herrera Avila — a Mexican national apprehended in Minneapolis for lacking immigration papers — could be detained without a bond hearing while removal (deportation) proceedings move forward. The panel reversed a federal district judge who had found Avila was not an “applicant for admission” and therefore entitled to a habeas corpus challenge and a bond hearing. The majority concluded the statute’s language supports the government’s position that an “applicant for admission” includes people in Avila’s situation.

The case turns on statutory interpretation. “Bond” here means a neutral immigration judge setting release conditions; a bond hearing is the process to determine whether detention is necessary. Habeas corpus is the constitutional right to challenge unlawful detention. The decision follows a February Fifth Circuit ruling that also upheld the administration’s policy denying bond hearings nationwide — creating a split with several lower courts that had required such hearings for many interior arrests.

Context, dissent and policy implications

Circuit judge Ralph E. Erickson dissented, warning the majority’s approach departs from nearly three decades of practice under multiple administrations and would subject millions of long‑term residents without criminal convictions to mandatory detention. The administration argues the change is lawful and consistent with its enforcement priorities; the attorney general publicly hailed the decision as a win for the government’s “law and order” agenda. The American Civil Liberties Union, which represents Avila, has indicated it will continue to litigate; it has been reported that further appeals to the full circuit or the Supreme Court are likely.

For people facing removal, the practical effect could be immediate and severe: fewer opportunities to seek release while their immigration cases proceed, longer stays in detention facilities run by ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) or state partners, and enlarged backlogs for counsel and courts. Historically, many noncitizens arrested away from the border and without criminal records could request bond and often gained release; this ruling narrows that pathway and increases uncertainty for immigrant families, asylum seekers, and long‑term undocumented residents caught in interior enforcement actions.

Source: Original Article