A recent decision from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals appeared to bolster the Trump administration’s authority to carry out systematic detention of immigrants targeted for deportation — even those without criminal records and with long-standing ties to the United States.
But in the days following the ruling, several federal judges signaled that the legal battle is far from over.
In a 2-1 decision, a three-judge panel of the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit sided with the administration’s interpretation of immigration detention authority. The panel concluded that federal law permits broad detention powers while removal proceedings are pending.
However, two federal district court judges in Texas — who are bound by 5th Circuit precedent — have found what they describe as a constitutional opening.
Judge Kathleen Cardone, a George W. Bush appointee based in El Paso, ruled in multiple cases that the appeals court decision does not override detainees’ constitutional claims. She emphasized that immigrants who have established significant connections to the United States may possess a protected “liberty interest” under the Constitution.
“This conclusion is not changed by the Fifth Circuit’s recent decision,” Cardone wrote, stating that the appellate ruling “has no bearing” on whether a detainee’s procedural due process rights have been violated.
Judge David Briones, a Clinton appointee also based in El Paso, reached a similar conclusion. He reiterated that noncitizens who have lived in the United States for a substantial period may acquire a constitutional interest in freedom from prolonged detention without a bond hearing before a neutral judge.
The rulings are significant because the administration has frequently transferred detainees to Texas facilities following arrests in other states. The 5th Circuit’s jurisdiction covers Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, making its precedent binding on district courts there.
The Justice Department has defended the detention policy, with one official — speaking anonymously — characterizing the district court rulings as “results-oriented decisions.” The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately comment.
The appellate decision is still working its way through lower courts. Immigrants in Texas and Louisiana have filed large numbers of habeas corpus petitions challenging what they describe as indefinite detention without bond. The losing side in the 5th Circuit case may seek review by the full court or ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, reactions outside the 5th Circuit have been more forceful.
In Colorado, Judge Charlotte Sweeney, a Biden appointee, issued a detailed critique of the appellate ruling, arguing that the majority opinion minimized core constitutional principles. In New Jersey, Judge Evelyn Padin, also appointed by President Biden, said she found the 5th Circuit’s reasoning unpersuasive and noted that it is not binding in her jurisdiction.
Both judges indicated that other federal appellate courts may soon weigh in on the legality of the administration’s detention framework, raising the possibility of a circuit split — a scenario that would increase the likelihood of Supreme Court review.
