US appeals court sides with Trump administration on detaining immigrants
without bond
[March 26, 2026]
By AUDREY McAVOY
The U.S. can continue to detain immigrants without bond, an appeals
court ruled on Wednesday, handing a victory to the Trump
administration's crackdown on immigration.
The opinion from a panel of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St.
Louis overturned a lower court ruling that required that a native of
Mexico arrested for lacking legal documents be given a bond hearing
before an immigration judge.
It’s the second appeals court to rule in favor of the administration on
this issue. The 5th Circuit in New Orleans ruled last month that the
Department of Homeland Security’s decision to deny bond hearings to
immigrants arrested across the country was consistent with the
Constitution and federal immigration law.
Both appeals court opinions counter recent lower court decisions across
the country that argued the practice is illegal.
In November, a district court decision in California granted detained
immigrants with no criminal history the opportunity to request a bond
hearing and had implications for noncitizens held in detention
nationwide.
Under past administrations, most noncitizens with no criminal record who
were arrested away from the border had an opportunity to request a bond
hearing while their cases wound through immigration court. Historically,
bond was often granted to those without criminal convictions who were
not flight risks, and mandatory detention was limited to recent border
crossers.
In the case before the 8th Circuit, Joaquin Herrera Avila of Mexico was
apprehended in Minneapolis in August 2025 for lacking legal documents
authorizing his admission into the United States. The Department of
Homeland Security detained Avila without bond and began deportation
proceedings.
He filed a petition seeking immediate release or a bond hearing. A
federal judge in Minnesota granted the petition, saying the law
authorized detention without bond when a person seeking admission is not
clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to being admitted. The judge found
this was not the case for Avila because he had lived in the country for
years without seeking naturalization, asylum or refugee status and thus
wasn't “seeking admission.”
[to top of second column]
|
The Department of Homeland Security logo during a news conference in
Washington, Feb. 25, 2015. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, File)
Circuit Court Judge Bobby E. Shepherd wrote for the majority in a
2-1 opinion that the law was “clear that an “applicant for
admission” is also an alien who is “seeking admission,” and so Avila
couldn't petition on these grounds.
Circuit Court Judge Ralph R. Erickson dissented, saying that Avila
would have been entitled to a bond hearing during his deportation
hearings if he had been arrested during the past 29 years. Now, he
wrote, the Circuit Court has ruled that Avila and millions of others
would be subject to mandatory detention under a novel interpretation
of “alien seeking admission” that hasn’t been used by the courts or
five previous presidential administrations.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing Avila,
didn't immediately return an email message seeking comment.
Attorney General Pam Bondi hailed the ruling, writing in a social
media post: “MASSIVE COURT VICTORY against activist judges and for
President Trump’s law and order agenda!”
At question is the issue of whether the government is required to
ask a neutral judge to to determine whether it is legal to imprison
someone.
It's based on the habeas corpus, which is a Latin legal term
referring to the constitutional right for people to legally
challenge their detention by the government.
Immigrants have filed more than 30,000 habeas corpus petitions in
federal court alleging illegal detention since Trump took office,
according to a tally by The Associated Press. Many have succeeded.
All contents © copyright 2026 Associated Press. All rights reserved
 |
