The U.S. can continue to detain immigrants without bond, an appeals court ruled on Wednesday, handing a victory to the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration.
The opinion from a panel of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis overturned a lower court ruling that required that a native of Mexico arrested for lacking legal documents be given a bond hearing before an immigration judge.
It’s the second appeals court to rule in favor of the administration on this issue. The 5th Circuit in New Orleans ruled last month that the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to deny bond hearings to immigrants arrested across the country was consistent with the Constitution and federal immigration law.
The latest opinion contrasts with recent lower court decisions nationwide arguing that the practice is illegal. In November, a district court decision in California granted detained immigrants with no criminal history the opportunity to request a bond hearing, impacting noncitizens held in detention.
In the case before the 8th Circuit, Joaquin Herrera Avila was apprehended in Minneapolis in August 2025 for lacking legal documents authorizing his admission into the United States. The Department of Homeland Security detained Avila without bond and initiated deportation proceedings.
He filed a petition seeking immediate release or a bond hearing, which was granted by a federal judge who concluded that the law authorized detention without bond for people not entitled to admission. However, the 8th Circuit ruled that Avila was not eligible for such proceedings due to his lack of formal admission status.
This decision carries significant implications, as many immigrants could be subjected to similar mandatory detention without bond hearings. The American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing Avila, has yet to comment on the ruling. Attorney General Pam Bondi celebrated the decision as a victory for Trump's law and order agenda.
The debate centers around whether the government is legally obligated to request judicial review of such detentions, challenging established principles related to habeas corpus rights for individuals.
