| |
Court: Can Keep Immigrants Without Bond03/26 06:28
(AP) -- 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."
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.
|
|
