No-bond detentions spark ‘unprecedented’ flood of legal challenges

(NewsNation) — Federal courts are inundated with thousands of challenges to immigration detentions, and a recent appeals court’s ruling indicates there’s no sign of a slowdown. Thousands detained as part of the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration are arguing they are being unlawfully held, and legal experts say those challenges have led to longer detentions, even for those who might otherwise be released. It has also left U.S. attorneys underwater, and potential conflicting rulings across appellate courts could set up a showdown at the Supreme Court. After the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans sided with the White House’s push to hold immigrants without bond, detainees’ only option is to file a habeas corpus petition in federal court, and hundreds are being filed daily. More than 11,110 habeas petitions have been filed in the first weeks of 2026, surpassing the roughly 9,250 filed in the whole of 2025, according to court data analyzed by NewsNation. By comparison, the combined number of detention petitions from 2022 through 2024 was under 1,100. Peter Markowitz, an immigration law professor at Cardozo School of Law, called the volume “unprecedented,” adding that the number of petitions represents only a “sliver” of those detained, as many don’t have access to file. In a statement to NewsNation, the Department of Homeland Security said, “No lawbreakers in the history of human civilization have been treated better than illegal aliens in the United States. Additionally, it should come as no surprise that more habeas petitions are being filed by illegal aliens—especially after many activist judges have attempted to thwart President Trump from fulfilling the American people’s mandate for mass deportations.” Former judges warn impeachment push could undermine judicial system The 5th Circuit became the first appellate court to endorse the administration’s position on no-bond detentions. Other circuits are also weighing the issue in places like Minneapolis, where the Trump administration undertook immigration operations this year. ‘Human cost’ of no-bond detentions Rebecca Cassler, an attorney with the American Immigration Lawyers Association, told NewsNation the real harm falls on detainees held with little justification and limited access to habeas relief. “A large majority of these people are people who would have never been subjected to mandatory detention before, and only are now because of a change in legal interpretation that ICE and then the immigration court formally adopted in the second half of last year,” she said. “It’s really important to understand this isn’t just like a civil kind of process where people don’t get to live with their families. The conditions in these detention centers are horrific, so there’s a really high human cost to this,” she added. There is no right to counsel in any immigration proceeding, which has created a bottleneck for attorneys stepping in to file and defend these petitions, Markowitz said. There are not enough attorneys to file habeas petitions for the number of people being held, he said. Regardless of status, people are entitled to counsel, and many are using legal pathways Congress created, such as asylum. They’re attending court and check-ins and pursuing their cases, Markowitz said, yet despite complying and posing no danger or flight risk, they remain unlawfully detained. Denise Gilman, a law professor who directs the Immigration Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin, said the resolution is to detain fewer people. “The vast majority of those who are in immigration detention right now are people who were complying and had viable claims, and yet they’re sitting in a detention center at great taxpayer cost, by the way, as well as cost to their humanity and dignity and ability to fight their cases,” she said. Do ICE officers have absolute immunity? Ruling to deny bond hearings runs counter to decades of practice Earlier this month, the 5th Circuit upheld the Trump administration’s reinterpretation of longstanding immigration law, allowing the government to classify certain immigrants as falling under mandatory detention. “In contrast to past administrations, the current administration has chosen to exercise a greater portion of its authority by treating applicants for admission under the provision designed to apply to them,” wrote U.S. Circuit Judge Edith Jones, who was appointed by former President Ronald Reagan, adding that the court found “the government’s position is correct.” The ruling, however, runs counter to 30 years of practice and understanding of the law under both Republican and Democratic administrations, which generally limited mandatory detention to those apprehended at or near the border and allowed others inside the U.S. to seek bond. In July 2025, a federal memo directed Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to hold all “applicants for admission” without legal standing in mandatory detention during removal proceedings — and that bond hearings were only available to immigrants who were lawfully admitted and later lost status. “It’s a problem of the administration’s making that they’re detaining more people and then stripping away rights of review in the administrative process,” Gilman said. Many such individuals are being indefinitely detained even when they have strong community ties, asylum claims or other factors that would have likely led to their release in the past, she said. Justice Department faces ‘crushing burden’ over habeas surge While courts face an unprecedented wave of petitions, the Justice Department is struggling to keep up. “This tidal wave of [habeas] litigation has placed a severe strain on the U.S. Attorney Office resources and has required the diversion of resources committed to other important priorities, including criminal cases,” wrote Justin Simmons, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Texas, in filings to the 5th Circuit prior to the appellate court decision. In Minnesota, U.S. Attorney Daniel Rosen wrote in a court declaration last month that the “sheer number of cases, especially in light of the substantial increase in this month alone, is imposing a crushing burden on U.S. Attorney’s Offices. This has, in turn, compelled U.S. Attorney’s Offices to shift resources away from other critical priorities, including criminal matters.” In a statement, a DOJ spokesperson told NewsNation the Trump administration is complying with federal immigration law, putting the blame for the case volume on “rogue judges.” “The level of illegal aliens currently detained is a direct result of this Administration’s strong border security policies to keep the American people safe,” the spokesperson said. U.S. attorneys and ICE leadership have been threatened with contempt proceedings by federal judges for failing to comply with orders regarding habeas petitions, including missed deadlines for detainees’ bond hearings. Last month, Minnesota Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz, appointed by former President George W. Bush, threatened to hold top ICE officials in contempt for ignoring court orders regarding immigrant bond hearings. FBI not cooperating in state’s investigation into Alex Pretti killing: Investigators Another Minnesota judge, Susan Nelson, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, also threatened contempt for the government after they missed a release deadline by five days, but canceled it after the detainee was freed. Patchwork rulings could create conflicting policies Among the thousands of habeas petitions filed, judges appear to be ruling more in favor of detainees, Markowitz said. “What’s unusual here is how kind of relatively uniform and lopsided the federal courts have been in their judgments,” he said. In hundreds of cases, judges have found ICE’s detention practices unlawful, while only a small number have reached the opposite conclusion, he added. The Justice Department began appealing those decisions more quickly toward the end of last year, with cases slated for several districts outside the 5th Circuit. Cassler of the American Immigration Lawyers Association said it’s likely other appellate courts will rule against the administration’s attempt to change the law. If the courts split, she warned, it could create a patchwork of outcomes, in which detention is permitted in some places but not others, potentially putting it in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.