The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a significant ruling on Wednesday, upholding a key immigration policy of the President Donald Trump administration. The decision permits federal authorities to detain certain individuals facing deportation without granting them bond hearings, marking the second such appellate-level victory for the administration in recent weeks.
In a 2-1 decision, the court concluded that federal law allows, and in some instances requires, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to detain individuals classified as "applicants for admission" while their removal proceedings are ongoing. This interpretation expands the scope of previous applications of the law, which often allowed for release through bond hearings, to include people who have resided in the United States for years without lawful status.
The ruling is expected to have a considerable impact, particularly in Minnesota, where federal district courts had previously rejected this approach. Many individuals detained during recent ICE operations in the Twin Cities region had filed petitions challenging their detention, with numerous district judges ruling in favor of bond hearings. However, the 8th Circuit's decision now binds lower courts within its jurisdiction, according to reports.
Judge Bobby Shepherd authored the majority opinion, joined by Judge L. Steven Grasz. The court determined that individuals present in the United States without lawful admission meet the statutory definition of “applicants for admission” under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) and are therefore subject to detention without bond while proceedings continue.
This ruling aligns with a similar 2-1 decision issued by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the same interpretation in a case originating from Texas. These two appellate decisions collectively bolster the administration’s legal position as comparable cases continue to advance through other circuits, including the 7th and 9th Circuits, where judges have expressed skepticism regarding the policy.
The legal dispute centers on a decades-old statute that mandates the detention of individuals deemed to be seeking admission to the United States. Historically, administrations from both major political parties primarily applied this law to recent border crossers. However, in 2025, ICE reinterpreted the statute to extend its reach to individuals already present within the country without lawful entry, a stance that was subsequently supported by the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Supporters of the ruling contend that it restores the plain meaning of the law and enables ICE to carry out detentions without the requirement of bond hearings in a broader range of cases. For instance, The Gateway Pundit reported that the decision reverses prior lower court rulings, including one involving a Mexican national detained in Minneapolis who had sought release without bond during removal proceedings.
Conversely, opponents of the policy, including several federal judges and various immigrant advocacy groups, have raised significant constitutional concerns, particularly regarding due process. While both the 5th and 8th Circuits upheld the statutory interpretation, neither court addressed whether detainees are entitled to bond hearings under the U.S. Constitution. Consequently, some district courts have continued to release individuals on due process grounds.
In his dissenting opinion, Judge Ralph Erickson highlighted that multiple presidential administrations had previously interpreted the law more narrowly. He cautioned that the broader application adopted by the majority could have far-reaching consequences.
Attorney General Pam Bondi praised the outcome as a “massive court victory against activist judges,” emphasizing the administration's intent to fully enforce federal law. As legal challenges persist, the issue may progress through additional appellate courts, potentially leading to a nationwide ruling. The ultimate outcome could significantly alter how federal authorities manage detention for millions of individuals currently living in the United States without lawful status.
