“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case?
A Mexican immigrant challenged the US government for holding him without bond during removal proceedings.
What happened in this case?
Joaquin Avila, an immigrant from Mexico, has lived in the United States since 2006. In 2025, after a routine traffic stop, he was arrested for not having legal documents authorizing his admission into the US. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) detained him without bond and brought proceedings to remove him from the US.
Avila had lived in the US for nearly 20 years, and filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking release while the removal proceedings were pending. The district court found that he was not subject to mandatory detention under existing law and granted him a bond hearing. DHS appealed to the Eighth Circuit.
In a decision by George W Bush judge Bobby Shepherd, joined by Trump judge Steven Grasz, the Eighth Circuit reversed the lower court and ruled that Avila and other immigrants were not entitled to a bond hearing and could be detained indefinitely during removal proceedings. Trump judge Ralph Erickson dissented in the March 2026 decision in Avila v Bondi.
What was the rationale of Bush judge Shepherd and Trump judge Grasz?
Judges Shepherd and Grasz followed the ruling of the Fifth Circuit, made possible by Trump judge Kyle Duncan, in determining that the Trump administration could detain immigrants like Avila. They maintained that a long-time federal statute authorizing detention of any immigrant “seeking admission” applies to Avila, even though he was not actively seeking admission into the US.
Why did Judge Ericson dissent?
In an unusual dissent for a Trump judge, Judge Erickson strongly dissented. He explained that the majority’s interpretation of “seeking admission” contradicts the “plain meaning” of the federal statute and the interpretation of previous “courts and five presidential administrations.” Even the “first Trump Administration,” he pointed out, followed this interpretation. The lower court decision, he concluded, should be affirmed
Why is the decision harmful?
The ruling made possible by Trump judge Grasz clearly harms Joaquin Avila as well as many other immigrants across the country who can now be subject to mandatory detention. This is particularly so in states within the Eighth Circuit, which includes Minnesota, Arkansas, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, and North and South Dakota, on top of the harm already being done in states within the Fifth Circuit, which includes Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi in the Fifth Circuit. The case also illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.