Trump Administration Secures Key Victory

In a significant development for U.S. immigration policy, the Trump administration has achieved a major legal win. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), allowing officials to detain undocumented immigrants without bond until their deportation hearings conclude. This decision, covering Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana, marks a shift from previous practices that often-allowed releases into the community.

The ruling addresses a longstanding issue in immigration enforcement. Under prior administrations, particularly during the Biden era, captured undocumented individuals were frequently released with notices to appear at future hearings. Many never returned, disappearing into sanctuary cities or elsewhere in the country. The new policy under President Donald Trump aims to end this catch-and-release approach by keeping detainees in custody throughout the expedited review process.

Constitutional Underpinnings

To understand the constitutional underpinnings of this decision, it is essential to examine the distinctions between the rights afforded to U.S. citizens and those extended to undocumented immigrants. The U.S. Constitution, particularly through the Fourteenth Amendment, delineates clear differences. The Privileges or Immunities Clause states: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." This clause explicitly protects the fundamental rights and liberties of citizens, ensuring they enjoy certain guarantees not automatically extended to non-citizens. Undocumented immigrants, while entitled to certain protections as "persons" under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, do not possess the full spectrum of constitutional rights reserved for citizens. For instance, aliens have limited due process rights in immigration proceedings, which are civil rather than criminal in nature, as defined by Congress and Supreme Court precedents.

Historical Context

Historically, the framers of the Constitution and the Reconstruction-era architects of the Fourteenth Amendment focused on securing rights for citizens, particularly in the aftermath of the Civil War to protect newly freed slaves. The amendment's text reflects this intent: while due process applies to "any person," the privileges and immunities are reserved for "citizens”. Supreme Court cases have reinforced this distinction. In cases like Graham v. Richardson (1971), the Court applied strict scrutiny to state laws disadvantaging lawful aliens, but for undocumented immigrants, as in Plyler v. Doe (1982), it used intermediate scrutiny, acknowledging that their unlawful presence affects the level of protection. This historical framework underscores that undocumented immigrants enjoy privileges and immunities at the discretion of law, not as inherent constitutional rights like those of citizens.

Federal immigration law and court precedents make clear that aliens do not have full access to all constitutional rights afforded to citizens. In immigration contexts, their protections are more limited, varying based on status and circumstances, such as whether they have been lawfully admitted or developed substantial ties to the country. This aligns with statements from figures like Senator James Lankford, who emphasized that illegal aliens do not have the same rights as American citizens.

Expert Analysis

Mark Smith, a constitutional attorney and host of The Four Boxes Diner channel, highlighted the importance of this outcome. He described it as a blow to tactics used by some legal advocates who file habeas corpus petitions on behalf of detainees. These petitions, often supported by pro bono legal aid, seek releases by arguing for rights to remain free pending hearings. Smith argued that such releases undermine border security and allow individuals with potentially unfounded claims to evade justice, especially given the constitutional distinctions that limit non-citizens' claims to full rights.

Policy Implications

The decision empowers DHS leaders, including Secretary Kristi Noem and Attorney General Pam Bondi, to maintain control over immigration proceedings. By detaining individuals at ports of entry or within the U.S., authorities can ensure hearings proceed without the risk of absconding. Smith emphasized that this upholds American values, including the protection of constitutional rights like the Second Amendment, by preventing unchecked influxes that could threaten national security.



This victory comes amid broader efforts to resolve what Smith calls a "foreign invasion" by those uninterested in American principles. He linked immigration control to preserving the nation's core liberties, represented by the "four boxes" of American freedom: the soap box, ballot box, jury box, and ammunition box.

Broader Impact and Conclusion

While the ruling is limited to the Fifth Circuit, it sets a precedent that could influence other jurisdictions. Supporters view it as a step toward stronger borders, while critics may argue it raises humanitarian concerns. For now, it strengthens the administration's hand in enforcing immigration laws more rigorously.

As immigration remains a hot-button issue, this court decision underscores the ongoing battle over how the U.S. handles border security and due process for non-citizens, all while respecting the constitutional framework that prioritizes citizens' rights.

Michael J Badagliacco, “MJB”

Michael is a father of 5, grandfather of 3, USAF Veteran, recording artist, entrepreneur, Editor of USA Liberty Report, passionate about Freedom, Liberty, the founders’ genius of the Constitution and current Candidate for Montrose City Council, mjb4Montrose.com