Fifth Circuit Hands DHS Major Victory on Mandatory Detention, Validating Secretary Noem’s Stance Against ‘Activist Judges’
A federal appeals court has upheld the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) strict mandatory detention policy, marking a significant legal victory for the agency and Secretary Kristi Noem. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday that the administration acted within its authority to deny bond hearings to certain non-citizens facing deportation, reversing a series of lower court orders that had previously blocked the practice.
Secretary Noem celebrated the decision, framing it as a vindication of her department’s interpretation of immigration statutes. “For months, activist judges have ordered the release of alien after alien based on the false claim that DHS was breaking the law,” Noem stated following the ruling. “Today, the first court of appeals to address the question ruled that DHS was right all along.”
The Ruling and Its Implications
The divided panel of the Fifth Circuit concluded that the administration can lawfully treat individuals apprehended inside the United States as “applicants for admission”—a classification that subjects them to mandatory detention without the option of a bond hearing. This interpretation allows DHS to hold individuals in custody throughout their deportation proceedings, a shift from previous practices where detainees could petition immigration judges for release on bond if they had established ties to the community.
Writing for the conservative majority, Judge Edith Jones stated that the current administration has chosen to exercise a greater portion of its statutory authority compared to past administrations. The court found that federal law does not mandate bond hearings for this specific category of detainees, effectively overruling decisions by numerous federal district judges who had argued otherwise.
Legal Pushback and Dissent
The decision has drawn sharp criticism from civil rights advocates and legal experts who argue it strips due process from individuals who may have lived in the U.S. for years. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which represented the petitioners in the case, has previously contended that denying bond hearings violates constitutional protections against indefinite detention.
In a strongly worded dissent, U.S. Circuit Judge Dana Douglas characterized the majority’s interpretation as legally groundless and historically unprecedented. Douglas wrote that the ruling ignores decades of established immigration law distinctions, criticizing the court for “straining at a gnat” to “swallow a camel.” She argued that the government’s position relies on a novel reading of the statute that Congress never intended, potentially impacting thousands of people, including the parents and spouses of American citizens.
Broader Context of Border Enforcement
This appellate win bolsters the DHS’s broader “Defend the Homeland” campaign, which has prioritized the detention and removal of undocumented immigrants under Secretary Noem’s leadership. The administration has faced persistent legal challenges in its first year, with over 300 federal rulings having previously gone against the mandatory detention policy.
The Fifth Circuit’s decision applies to federal courts in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi—states that house a significant portion of the nation’s immigration detention network. The ruling creates a potential circuit split, as other appellate courts may reach different conclusions, raising the likelihood that the Supreme Court will eventually need to resolve the dispute over the scope of DHS’s detention powers.
infowars.com
24.ae
courthousenews.com
infowars.com
patriots.win
