Fifth Circuit Weighs Legality of Government's Mandatory Immigration Detention Policy

Judges appear divided on whether the government can classify nearly all deportation targets as "applicants for admission" to deny them bond hearings

Published on Feb. 4, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

As federal district courts across the country grapple with a surge of lawsuits challenging the Trump administration's approach to detaining noncitizens without bond, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit appears poised to side with the government. A three-judge panel heard arguments on Tuesday in consolidated Texas cases, with Judges Edith H. Jones and Stuart Kyle Duncan suggesting support for the government's interpretation of immigration law, while Judge Dana M. Douglas' questions seemed at odds with her colleagues. Former immigration judge Daniel H. Weiss expects a 2-1 decision in the government's favor.

Why it matters

This case highlights the ongoing legal battle over the government's efforts to expand mandatory detention of immigrants, which could impact thousands of people living in the U.S. interior who are seeking lawful status or relief from deportation. The outcome could set an important precedent for how immigration laws are interpreted and applied across the country.

The details

At issue is the government's reinterpretation of mandatory and discretionary detention provisions in the Immigration and Nationality Act, specifically 8 U.S.C Sections 1225 and 1226. The government has begun classifying virtually all deportation targets as "applicants for admission" under Section 1225, which mandates detention with limited exceptions, rather than applying the more lenient Section 1226 that allows for bond hearings. Immigrants are challenging this policy in federal courts, with hundreds or thousands of cases pending nationwide.

  • The Fifth Circuit panel heard arguments on Tuesday, February 4, 2026.
  • The Seventh Circuit also heard the issue on the same day, February 4, 2026.
  • Other federal circuit courts are scheduled to consider the issue in March 2026.

The players

Edith H. Jones

A judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, who appeared to suggest support for the government's interpretation of immigration law during the hearing.

Stuart Kyle Duncan

A judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, who also appeared to suggest support for the government's interpretation of immigration law during the hearing.

Dana M. Douglas

A judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, whose questions during the hearing seemed to be at odds with her colleagues' apparent support for the government's position.

Daniel H. Weiss

A former immigration judge who listened to the hearing and expects a 2-1 decision in the government's favor.

Benjamin Hayes

A U.S. Department of Justice Senior Counsel who argued on behalf of the government during the hearing.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“Today's argument made clear this isn't just statutory parsing. It's about whether the government can treat people living in the interior like they're still standing at the border. The panel appeared to lean strongly in that direction.”

— Daniel H. Weiss, Former immigration judge (The Texas Lawbook)

“The petitioners' argument, their contrary reading, is not only at war with the statute's text, but it would reimpose the exact same perverse regime that existed before, in which aliens who were present in the United States, contrary to the immigration laws, were given greater protections, including bond hearings, as compared to those who presented at a port of entry in compliance with law. This Court should not adopt that backwards result and should reverse.”

— Benjamin Hayes, U.S. Department of Justice Senior Counsel (The Texas Lawbook)

What’s next

If the Fifth Circuit and Seventh Circuit issue conflicting rulings on the legality of the government's mandatory detention policy, the Supreme Court of the United States will almost certainly have to step in to resolve the issue.

The takeaway

This case highlights the ongoing legal battle over the government's efforts to expand mandatory detention of immigrants, which could have far-reaching implications for thousands of people living in the U.S. interior who are seeking lawful status or relief from deportation. The outcome could set an important precedent for how immigration laws are interpreted and applied across the country.