Appeals Court Greenlights Sweeping ICE Lockups

A federal appeals court just handed President Trump a major win that could determine whether immigration law is enforced as written—or quietly rewritten by decades of lax practice.

Quick Take

The Fifth Circuit ruled 2-1 that ICE can impose mandatory detention without bond under a 1996 immigration statute.
The policy shift traces to a July 2025 ICE interpretation expanding “mandatory detention” beyond recent border crossers to people already living in the U.S.
The decision applies only in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, but similar cases are moving through nearly every federal circuit.
Legal critics warn the interpretation could sweep in up to 2 million people, raising major due process questions the Supreme Court may ultimately settle.

What the Fifth Circuit Actually Approved—and Where It Applies

On February 6, 2026, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit voted 2-1 to uphold the Trump administration’s policy requiring detention without bond for certain undocumented immigrants under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. The ruling reversed lower-court orders that had blocked the policy. The immediate legal footprint is limited to the Fifth Circuit: Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.

The majority opinion was authored by Judge Edith Jones and joined by Judge Kyle Duncan, while Judge Dana Douglas dissented. In practical terms, the ruling gives ICE stronger footing—at least in those three states—to hold covered detainees without offering a bond hearing, subject to narrow discretionary exceptions described as humanitarian or public interest-based in the reporting around the case.

The July 2025 Shift: From “Border Arrivals” to “The Border Is Everywhere”

The legal conflict traces back to July 2025, when ICE adopted a new reading of the detention statute that had not been implemented at that scale for roughly three decades. Prior administrations—Republican and Democrat—generally treated mandatory detention as a tool aimed at people newly arriving and “seeking admission.” The Trump administration’s interpretation extends that authority to people who entered unlawfully at any time, regardless of how long they have lived in the country.

That expanded reading triggered a wave of litigation from detainees who argued they were being held without due process. The challenge was not merely academic. Once mandatory detention is applied broadly in the interior, it changes the leverage in removal proceedings, the ability of families to stay together while cases move forward, and the day-to-day burden on immigration courts and detention infrastructure.

Textualism vs. Tradition: How the Majority Justified the Policy

The Fifth Circuit majority’s rationale, as summarized in coverage of the decision, leaned heavily on the statutory text rather than historical enforcement patterns. Judge Jones’ reasoning was framed as a straightforward reading: the statute “says what it says,” and the fact that prior administrations did not use the fullest enforcement authority does not prove the authority was absent. That approach treats long-standing practice as policy choice, not legal constraint.

For conservatives who watched years of selective enforcement and administrative workarounds, the majority’s logic will sound familiar: agencies do not get to nullify laws by under-enforcing them, then claim the “new” enforcement is unlawful because it departs from agency habit. At the same time, because immigration detention sits at the intersection of statutory power and constitutional protections, the majority’s approach almost guarantees continued appeals and a likely Supreme Court showdown.

The Dissent and the Due Process Fight Headed Toward the Supreme Court

Judge Dana Douglas’ dissent argued the government’s interpretation would erase a core distinction in immigration law and effectively make “the border” a nationwide condition—meaning detention rules associated with entry could follow people long after arrival. The dissent also warned the policy could result in detention without bond for as many as 2 million people, including relatives of U.S. citizens. Critics say that scale raises constitutional due process concerns even if the statute is read broadly.

The broader judicial landscape remains unsettled. A major review cited in reporting found far more judges rejecting the administration’s interpretation than endorsing it, with thousands of individual cases decided against the expanded approach. With challenges pending in nearly every circuit—and at least one circuit signaling skepticism—the Fifth Circuit’s decision is best understood as a pivotal win, not the final word.

Appeals Court Puts Seal of Approval on Illegal Alien Detentionhttps://t.co/TV16ZMT24Q

— PJ Media (@PJMedia_com) February 7, 2026

For now, the ruling strengthens enforcement tools in a region that has borne the brunt of illegal immigration and the downstream costs of weak border control. But it also tees up the central constitutional question: how far Congress allowed mandatory detention to extend, and what procedural safeguards must exist when the government deprives someone of liberty while removal proceedings unfold. The Supreme Court’s eventual involvement appears likely given the national stakes and circuit-by-circuit conflict.