A federal appeals court has ruled that certain individuals detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) are not entitled to bond hearings, adding to a growing legal debate over immigration enforcement policies tied to Donald Trump.
The case centers on Joaquin Herrera Avila, a Mexican national who was arrested in Minneapolis in August after authorities said he could not provide documentation proving lawful entry into the United States. Following his arrest, he was placed in detention without bond while undergoing removal proceedings.
The decision was issued by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis, which overturned a lower court ruling that had granted Avila the ability to challenge his detention through a habeas corpus petition. In a split decision, the appellate court found that federal law permits detention without bond for certain individuals classified as applicants for admission.
Writing for the majority, Judge Bobby Shepherd, who was appointed by George W. Bush, explained that although Avila had lived and worked in the United States for years, he had not taken formal legal steps toward residency, such as applying for asylum or citizenship. Because of this, the court determined he could still be considered as “seeking admission” under immigration law, making him subject to mandatory detention.
Attorney General Pam Bondi welcomed the ruling, describing it as a strong affirmation of the administration’s approach to immigration enforcement. She argued that the decision reinforces the government’s authority to detain certain individuals during removal proceedings without offering bond hearings.
The ruling is consistent with a recent decision by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, which also concluded that some noncitizens may be held without bond under similar legal interpretations. Together, these rulings signal a broader judicial trend supporting stricter detention policies.
However, the decision drew dissent. Judge Ralph R. Erickson argued that the majority’s interpretation departs from longstanding legal practice. He noted that Avila had lived in the United States for nearly 20 years and would previously have been eligible for a bond hearing.
