Appeals courts back detention
Federal appeals panels have recently affirmed broad detention powers, with the 5th Circuit upholding DHS authority to detain immigrants without bond and the Eighth Circuit ruling that noncitizens who entered without inspection can be held without release in several Midwestern states—setting up a likely Supreme Court showdown this fall. These rulings deepen circuit splits over bond rights and will materially affect removal defense strategy across Texas, the Midwest, and neighboring jurisdictions. (apnews.com, x.com)
The Fifth Circuit issued Buenrostro‑Mendez v. Bondi on Feb. 6, 2026, holding that noncitizens physically present in the U.S. who were never lawfully admitted qualify as “applicants for admission” and fall under mandatory detention at 8 U.S.C. §1225(b)(2)(A). (ca5.uscourts.gov) That Fifth Circuit opinion was a divided panel decision (Judges Jones, Duncan, and Douglas) and the court noted “well over a thousand” habeas petitions challenging DHS’s bondless detention policy had been filed in the circuit. (law.justia.com) The Eighth Circuit’s March 25, 2026 opinion in Joaquin Avila v. Bondi (No. 25‑3248) reversed a Minnesota district court and concluded an alien who entered without inspection can be treated as “seeking admission,” placing them ineligible for bond under §1225(b)(2)(A). (ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov) The Avila opinion carried a 2‑1 split, with Judge Ralph Erickson dissenting and expressly invoking nearly 30 years of immigration‑practice history and prior administrations’ interpretations as reasons to reject the majority’s statutory reading. (news.bloomberglaw.com) Those appellate rulings conflict with the Central District of California’s Nov. 25, 2025 class‑certification in Maldonado Bautista, which restored bond‑hearing access to a nationwide class by treating many interior detainees as governed by §1226(a) rather than §1225(b). (nwirp.org) The split now covers the Fifth Circuit (Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi) and the Eighth Circuit (Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota), and multiple legal outlets and commentators have flagged that the divergent appellate rulings make Supreme Court review a likely next step this term. (immigrationpolicynews.com(politico.com)
