>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
At the center of the case were two illegal immigrants — Victor Buenrostro-Mendez and Jose Padron Covarrubias — both Mexican nationals who entered the United States unlawfully in 2009 and 2001. After being detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in 2025, both men requested bond hearings. ICE denied those requests, citing a September 2025 Board of Immigration Appeals decision that reinterpreted long-standing immigration statutes to require mandatory detention.
This marks the first time a federal appeals court has explicitly upheld the Trump-era detention policy, placing the Fifth Circuit in direct conflict with dozens of lower-court rulings across the country. Those prior decisions had ordered bond hearings for detainees, effectively limiting the government’s ability to enforce immigration law during prolonged legal battles.
Supporters of the ruling argue it restores order to an immigration system long plagued by abuse, loopholes, and deliberate delays. By preventing the release of individuals who entered the country illegally, the policy reduces the risk of absconding and strengthens federal enforcement efforts. Immigration activists, however, have condemned the decision, claiming it abandons what they describe as traditional detention standards.
Attorneys representing the plaintiffs have signaled that they may seek further review, including a possible appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. As of now, no formal appeal has been filed.
The Fifth Circuit decision follows another major immigration-related ruling from the Supreme Court last week — one that further reinforced the federal government’s authority. In a unanimous 9–0 decision, the Court ruled that federal courts do not have jurisdiction to review visa revocations involving fraudulent marriages, leaving those decisions squarely in the hands of the Department of Homeland Security.
The ruling clarified that while courts may review initial visa denials, they lack authority to intervene once DHS revokes an approved visa. That distinction, the Court said, reflects clear congressional intent to grant DHS broad discretion in immigration enforcement.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, an appointee of President Joe Biden, authored the opinion and emphasized the sweeping authority Congress granted the executive branch. She described the statute as “a quintessential grant of discretion” to DHS.
“Congress did not impose specific criteria or conditions limiting this authority, nor did it prescribe how or when the Secretary must act. Context reinforces the discretionary nature of §1155,” the majority wrote.
The Court reinforced that interpretation, stating:
“Section 1155 is a quintessential grant of discretion: The Secretary ‘may’ revoke a previously approved visa petition ‘at any time’ for what the Secretary deems ‘good and sufficient cause,’” the 9-0 ruling said.
The case, Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, involved Amina Bouarfa, a U.S. citizen whose husband lost his visa after DHS determined he had previously participated in a fraudulent marriage — a finding that permanently disqualified him from obtaining legal residency.
During oral arguments, the justices focused heavily on statutory language limiting judicial review, signaling Congress’s intent to keep immigration enforcement decisions within the executive branch. Chief Justice John Roberts noted that Bouarfa’s husband could reapply for a visa and potentially challenge a future denial. However, Bouarfa’s attorney, Samir Deger-Sen, argued that restarting the process imposes serious delays and hardships on families, the Examiner reported.
Taken together, the Fifth Circuit and Supreme Court rulings represent a decisive shift back toward strict immigration enforcement — and a significant boost to President Trump’s efforts to restore border security and expand deportations as part of a broader immigration overhaul.
