The Trump administration claimed a rare court victory for its embattled immigration detention policy when an appeals court, covering three states with large detention centers, agreed to stay court rulings that freed three Texas immigrants during an appeal.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a terse July 21 ruling, agreed to stay three Texas court rulings that freed men who have no criminal record, and U.S. citizen children, who had arrived in the U.S. illegally years ago. The decision applies to Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, where many immigrants from around the country are transferred in the latest escalation of immigration arrests. The next step in their cases is a court hearing Sept. 24.
Brett Shumate, a U.S. assistant attorney general, called the ruling “an extraordinary precedential order making clear that illegal aliens do not have a constitutional right to roam free in the United States during their removal proceedings” in a social media post early Wednesday.
That assessment met skepticism in a post from Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, which defended the immigrants in court.
“It’s an unreasoned stay order. In what world is that precedential?” Reichlin-Melnick wrote in a post. The Trump administration had asked for a “precedential” ruling to help stop what it called a “flood” of federal court cases freeing immigrants held under the policy.
The new detention policy, implemented in a July 2025 memo, threatens millions of immigrants with imprisonment without bond if they crossed a border illegally to get into the United States, no matter how long ago or whether they’ve applied for asylum. Without bond means they must be detained while awaiting court action.
The policy is a key part of the Trump administration’s stated goal to get to 1 million removals a year, including deportations and voluntary returns.
Statistics released July 20 by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement show about 2,000 detainees a month have been freed by court-ordered bond hearings. Many federal judges, even Trump appointees, have ruled against the Trump administration’s policy of mandatory detention for many immigrants. The U.S. Supreme Court is likely to rule on the legality of the policy in its October term.
Other courts have treated the detention policy differently, resulting in wildly different results across the country. A California class action case ruled the policy unconstitutional, requiring bond hearings for the immigrants. During an appeal, it only applies to the Los Angeles area, though judges in other states have cited the ruling to free immigrants or grant them bond hearings. A Nevada court made a similar ruling in March.
Appeals courts covering 10 states have ruled the detention policy is unconstitutional without a class-action designation that could make it applicable nationwide. Meanwhile the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, covering Arkansas and several Midwestern states, also upheld the Trump policy, helping to set up a Supreme Court case to settle the issue in the fall term.
Stateline reporter Tim Henderson can be reached at [email protected].
This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Florida Phoenix, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.
