The full Fifth Circuit ruled Friday that immigrants who entered the country unlawfully have no constitutional right to a bond hearing to challenge their immigration detention, upholding the constitutionality of a controversial Trump administration policy requiring mandatory detention for all unauthorized immigrants regardless of how long they’ve been in the U.S.

In an [opinion](https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/fifth-circuit-rules-trump-mandatory-detention-policy-constitutional.pdf) by U.S. Circuit Judge Cory Wilson, a Donald Trump appointee, the majority reversed a three-judge panel’s [finding](https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/fifth-circuit-panel-rules-mandatory-immigration-dentention-unconstitutional.pdf) that the mandatory detention policy was unconstitutional as applied to three immigrants who had each been in the country for more than a decade.

A [separate Fifth Circuit panel](https://www.courthousenews.com/fifth-circuit-upholds-trump-administrations-mandatory-detention-policy/) previously found that immigrants who enter without authorization are “applicants for admission” who may be denied bond hearings under federal immigration law, regardless of how long they have been in the U.S. That decision conflicts with rulings from nine other circuits.

Wilson said that finding also decides the constitutional issue.

…

Meanwhile, Rebecca Cassler, an attorney with the American Immigration Council who represents the three immigrants challenging the policy, called the ruling “an affront to the U.S. Constitution.”

“The principle at stake here is simple: if the government wants to detain someone, it has to explain why depriving them of their liberty is necessary. And anyone who is detained has the right to ask a judge for review of that detention,” Cassler said in a [statement](https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/press-release/fifth-circuit-immigration-detention-ruling-major-setback-due-process/). “Instead, this ruling allows the government to lock people up when detention plainly serves no purpose, and without any way to challenge it.”

…

For decades, the federal government treated noncitizens detained at or shortly after crossing the border as applicants for admission subject to mandatory detention, while immigrants detained within the country were entitled to bond hearings.

Last year, however, the Trump administration shifted its policy, treating anyone who entered the U.S. without lawful admission as an “applicant for admission” subject to detention without a bond hearing, regardless of how long they had been in the country.

The shift triggered an avalanche of federal habeas proceedings challenging the denial of bond hearings. The administration has largely lost those challenges: Judges appointed by presidents across the ideological spectrum have ruled the policy illegal or unconstitutional in more than 20,000 cases, according to a [Politico analysis](https://www.politico.com/news/2026/05/13/mandatory-detention-ice-cases-rulings-database-00913988), and nine of the 11 federal appeals courts to address the issue have ruled against the administration.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court [announced](https://www.courthousenews.com/justices-take-up-ice-mandatory-detention-policy/) it would hear a case on whether the mandatory detention policy complies with the Immigration and Nationality Act.