The Trump administration scored a major full-panel victory at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Friday, which ruled that detained illegal immigrants who were never formally admitted into the U. S. are not constitutionally entitled to bond hearings while awaiting deportation.
The ruling comes as the Supreme Court prepares to hear Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha this term, a closely related fight over whether the federal mandatory-detention statute applies at all to longtime immigrants arrested inside the country — setting up the possibility that the justices could either undercut Friday’s ruling or strengthen the government’s hand.
The Fifth Circuit answered the constitutional question in Ignacio Sosnava Rodriguez v. Sylvester M. Ortega, finding that three immigrant men detained under the mandatory-detention statute are not entitled to bond hearings under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The court held that their years or even decades of residence in the United States, along with ties to the country and their communities, do not create a constitutional right to a bond hearing.
“The Constitution does not entitle them to a bond hearing,” the court wrote.
FEDERAL APPEALS COURT COMPARES TRUMP MIGRANT DETENTION POLICY TO JAPANESE AMERICAN INTERNMENT
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court will consider Rhoney, a case out of the Second Circuit, to determine whether the mandatory-detention law applies to longtime immigrants arrested inside the country in the first place.
At the center of the issue is a 9-2 circuit split over which federal detention law applies to immigrants who entered the country illegally, were never formally admitted and were later arrested by immigration authorities after living in the U.S. for years — sometimes decades after crossing the border.
The Fifth and Eighth Circuits have held that those immigrants remain “applicants for admission” under Section 1225 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, subjecting them to mandatory detention without an ordinary bond hearing while their removal proceedings play out. Nine other federal appeals courts have ruled that Section 1226 applies instead, which provides a path for them to seek release on bond.
The Supreme Court will essentially decide whether immigrants who entered illegally and have lived in the U.S. for years can be subjected to the same mandatory-detention provision that applies to certain immigrants seeking admission into the country.
If the Supreme Court sides with the Second Circuit, Barbosa da Cunha — a Brazilian national who entered the country illegally roughly two decades ago and was detained in 2025 — would have a path to seek release on bond. Such a ruling would likely apply to the three longtime immigrants at the center of Rodriguez as well, substantially undercutting the significance of Friday’s ruling by eliminating the need to answer the constitutional question of whether due process requires a bond hearing.
SUPREME COURT TAKES UP FIGHT OVER TRUMP’S THIRD-COUNTRY ILLEGAL ALIEN DEPORTATION POLICY
Judge Leslie Southwick pointed directly to the looming Supreme Court fight in her dissent.
Should the Supreme Court eventually determine that this court was wrong as to the statute, then the constitutional issue we address here will have far less significance. It certainly has significance at the moment,” Southwick wrote.
But conservative legal experts say Rodriguez could also strengthen the administration’s hand in Rhoney by undercutting one argument against the government’s interpretation of Section 1225: that applying the mandatory-detention provision to longtime residents would raise serious constitutional concerns.
Michael Morley, a constitutional law professor at Florida State University, said Friday’s ruling could influence how the justices approach that question because courts often consider whether a particular reading of federal law would create constitutional problems.
FEDERAL APPEALS COURT DEALS BLOW TO TRUMP DEPORTATION AGENDA
“The Fifth Circuit’s en banc ruling in Rodriguez today takes the next step by holding that such detention would not violate the U.S. Constitution’s Due Process Clause,” Morley said. “This holding may impact the Supreme Court’s reasoning, because an important consideration in disputes over federal laws is whether a particular interpretation would be unconstitutional.”
“If the Court agrees with the Fifth Circuit’s analysis that the Due Process Clause allows such detention, it may be more likely to conclude that federal law permits it, as well, Morley continued.
Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom, argued that the decision could bolster the administration as the justices prepare to resolve the circuit split.
“I actually think this ruling will help the government in the Rhoney case,” von Spakovsky said, pointing to the Fifth Circuit’s position that the applicable immigration statute does not require bond hearings for immigrants who were never admitted to the United States.
SIGN UP TO GET THE POLITICS NEWSLETTER
“There was already a split in the circuit courts on this issue but the Fifth Circuit has consistently held that the applicable immigration statute does not require bond hearings for aliens who were never admitted to the United States,” he said. “I will be surprised if a majority of the Supreme Court disagrees when they ultimately issue a decision in the Rhoney case.”
The Supreme Court has not yet scheduled oral arguments in Rhoney, which it agreed to hear earlier this month.