An appeals court ruled Wednesday that the United States can continue to detain immigrants without bail, marking a victory for the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.
A panel opinion from the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis overturned a lower court ruling that a Mexican national arrested for lacking legal documents should be given a hearing before an immigration judge.
It is the second court of appeals to rule in favor of the administration in this case. Fifth District of New Orleans Judgment last month That the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to deny hearings to immigrants arrested across the country was consistent with the Constitution and federal immigration law.
Both opinions of the Court of Appeal are reversed Recent lower court decisions All over the country argued that the practice is illegal.
in November, California District Court Decision It gave detained immigrants with no criminal histories the opportunity to request a bail hearing and had implications for noncitizens in detention across the country.
Under previous administrations Most are non-citizens With no criminal record Who were caught away Borders have the opportunity to request a bail hearing while their cases are being heard in immigration court. Historically, bonds were often given to those who had no criminal convictions and were not a flight risk, and mandatory detention was limited to recent border crossers.
In the case before the Eighth Circuit, Joaquín Herrera Avila of Mexico was arrested in Minneapolis in August 2025 for lacking legal documents allowing his entry into the United States. The Department of Homeland Security detained Avila without bail and began deportation proceedings.
File a petition demanding immediate release or a bond hearing. A federal judge in Minnesota granted the petition, saying the law allows detention without bail when the person seeking admission does not have a clear and unquestionable right to admission. The judge found that this was not the case for Avila because he had lived in the country for years without seeking naturalization, asylum or refugee status, and therefore was not “seeking admission.”
Circuit Court Judge Bobby E. Shepherd for the majority in a 2-1 opinion held that the law was “clear that the ‘admission applicant’ is also an alien ‘seeking admission’,” and thus Avila could not petition on those grounds.
Circuit Court Judge Ralph R. Erickson said Avila would have been entitled to a hearing during his deportation hearings if he had been arrested within the past 29 years. The court has now ruled that Avila and millions of others will be subject to mandatory detention under a new interpretation of the term “aliens seeking entry” that had not been used by the courts or five previous presidential administrations, he wrote.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which represents Avila, did not immediately return an email seeking comment.
Attorney General Pam Bondi praised the ruling, writing in a social media post: “A massive victory for the court against activist judges and for President Trump’s law and order agenda!”
The question is whether the government should ask an impartial judge to determine whether it is legal to imprison someone.
It’s based on Habeas corpus ordera Latin legal term that refers to the constitutional right of people to legally challenge their detention by the government.
Immigrants have filed more than 30,000 habeas corpus petitions in federal court alleging unlawful detention since Trump took office, according to an Associated Press tally. Many have succeeded.