Eighth Circuit backs Trump tactic of detaining immigrants without bond

(CN) — A second federal appellate court upheld the Trump administration’s policy of arresting immigrants without permanent legal status and holding them without bond — sometimes for months or even years — rejecting hundreds of contrary lower court orders.

In an 11-page split ruling Wednesday, two Eighth Circuit judges said an immigrant in the country without authorization can be considered to be seeking admission to the United States — allowing the administration to treat such immigrants the same whether they were picked up across the border or have lived in the U.S. for years.

Such is the case for Joaquin Herrera Avila, a Mexican national who entered the country illegally nearly 20 years ago, and the subject of Wednesday’s ruling. Avila was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Minneapolis on Aug. 29, 2025, and remained in custody for about two months until U.S. District Judge John Tunheim ruled he must be given a bond hearing in October 2025.

It’s unclear what the reversal means for Avila’s future, but his attorneys insist he’s not at immediate risk of being detained as he weighs a possible appeal.

Writing for the majority, U.S. Circuit Judge Bobby Shepherd found the Trump administration’s policy on mandatory detention is consistent with the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.

“Being ‘admitted’ does not merely mean being present in the United States,” the George W. Bush appointee said in the ruling. “Under immigration law, it signifies having made a lawful entry into the country.”

Attorney General Pamela Bondi celebrated the ruling in a post on X, calling it a “massive court victory,” and remarking on how many “illegal alien crimes” could have been averted if the left had “simply followed the law.”

Throughout “Operation Metro Surge” in Minnesota, the Trump administration arrested hundreds of immigrants and held them in detention centers without bond. That practice has seen sharp criticism from federal judges in the state who have ordered a majority of those detainees be released.

Judges have gone so far as to threaten contempt for high-ranking officials over the government’s failure to release detainees in a timely manner.

It remains to be seen how this order will impact lower court rulings on habeas petitions moving forward.

As the sole dissenting vote, U.S. Circuit Judge Ralph Erickson, a Donald Trump appointee, said the administration relies on a “novel interpretation” not in line with five previous presidents.

“For the past 29 years, Avila would have been entitled to a bond hearing during his removal proceedings,” Erickson said in the ruling. “The court now holds that Avila — and millions of others — are subject to mandatory detention.”

Shepherd disputed Erickson’s claim — also argued by Avila — in saying that a prior administration’s decision to use less than their full enforcement authority “does not mean they lacked the authority to do more.”

Wednesday’s ruling comes almost two months after a divided Fifth Circuit panel similarly ruled in favor of the Trump administration’s mandatory detention policy, establishing a road map for the Eighth Circuit.

“Here, we agree with the Fifth Circuit that the ordinary meanings of the phrases ‘applicant for admission’ and ‘seeking admission’ are the same,” Shepherd wrote.

But the policy is not agreed-upon across the board. A December 2025 ruling from the Seventh Circuit found the practice of treating immigrants lacking permanent legal status differently from migrants at the border likely correct.

Wilson Law Group, the immigration law firm who initially represented Avila, did not respond to an initial request for comment.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security also did not respond to a request for comment.

U.S. Circuit Judge Steven Grasz, a Trump appointee, rounded out the Eighth Circuit panel.