Background
Two Mexican nationals who entered the United States illegally years ago were detained by immigration authorities in two thousand and twenty-five. They sought bond hearings under Section twelve hundred twenty-six of Title eight of the United States Code, arguing they were not actively seeking admission. The district courts granted their habeas petitions, ordering bond hearings. The government appealed, and the cases were consolidated before the Fifth Circuit.
The court’s reasoning
The court analyzed the statutory text of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of nineteen ninety-six. It concluded that the definition of applicant for admission in Section twelve hundred twenty-five subsection a one includes aliens present in the country without admission. The court found that the phrase seeking admission in Section twelve hundred twenty-five subsection b two subsection a does not require active pursuit of entry but is synonymous with being an applicant for admission. The court rejected arguments based on past administrative practice or the potential for redundancy, stating that the plain text controls. The court held that the statute mandates detention for these aliens without eligibility for bond.
We conclude that the government’s position is correct.
Opinion at page three
The dissent
The majority stakes the largest detention initiative in American history on the possibility that seeking admission is like being an applicant for admission, in a statute that has never been applied in this way.
Dana M. Douglas
What it means going forward
The decision mandates that illegal entrants present in the United States without admission must be detained without bond during removal proceedings. It reverses prior district court rulings that allowed bond hearings for such individuals.