In a major victory for immigration enforcement and the rule of law, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit delivered a blunt message on Friday, illegal aliens who entered the country unlawfully do not magically gain special privileges just because they managed to stay here for a long time.
The ruling centers on two Mexican nationals, Victor Buenrostro-Mendez and Jose Padron Covarrubias, who entered the United States illegally in 2009 and 2001. Both were apprehended by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in 2025 and placed into removal proceedings. Like millions of others, they had lived in the shadows for years and then argued that long-term presence entitled them to bond hearings and release.
The Fifth Circuit was not impressed.
Under federal law, specifically 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), individuals who are “applicants for admission” and cannot show they are clearly entitled to enter the country must be detained during removal proceedings. The key point, and one activists hate to admit, is that illegal aliens present in the U.S. without being admitted are legally treated the same as someone stopped at the border.
Circuit Judge Edith H. Jones spelled it out plainly in the majority opinion. “Presence without admission deems the petitioners to be applicants for admission,” she wrote, leaving little room for creative interpretation. The statute, she added, is crystal clear, illegal aliens in this category “shall be detained.”
For years, administrations quietly ignored or softened this language, allowing bond hearings for illegal aliens who had managed to avoid detection long enough. That changed in 2025, when the Board of Immigration Appeals clarified that the law means what it says. Mandatory detention is mandatory.
The two men sued, claiming violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Fifth Amendment, and the Administrative Procedure Act. Lower courts in Texas sided with them and ordered bond hearings, resulting in their release. The Fifth Circuit reversed those decisions outright, shutting down yet another example of lower courts rewriting immigration law from the bench.
Attorney General Pam Bondi welcomed the ruling, calling it “a significant blow against activist judges who have been ordering the release of illegal aliens.” That assessment is hard to dispute. The court did not invent new law. It simply applied the statute Congress passed in 1996 and that too many judges have pretended not to see.
This decision could have sweeping implications. Millions of illegal aliens currently in removal proceedings fall into the same legal category. While the ruling is limited to the Fifth Circuit for now, it adds serious momentum to the administration’s enforcement agenda and sets up potential showdowns in other circuits.
If those courts follow the law as written, this issue could eventually land before the Supreme Court. And if it does, the core question will be simple, does “shall be detained” actually mean what it says.
On Friday, the Fifth Circuit answered that question with refreshing clarity.
Leave a Comment