“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?
The Trump administration claims the power to detain millions of noncitizens without bond, including ones who have been here for decades. The vast majority of courts have rejected this extreme reinterpretation of immigration law contrary to congressional statute. But thanks to Trump Judge Kyle Duncan, the government now has that power throughout the Fifth Circuit. The February 2026 case is Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi.
What happened in this case?
The plaintiffs in this case are two longtime residents of the U.S. who are undocumented immigrants. Victor Buenrostro-Mendez has lived here since 2009, and Jose Padron Covarrubias has lived here since 2001. Last year, they were arrested and detained by immigration officials. The question in the case is whether they have a right to a bond hearing, where they might be released pending further proceedings.
The Trump administration claimed not only that it could deny them a bond hearing, but also that a congressional statute requires that they be locked up without bond pending resolution of their cases. This is a sharp departure from past practice and interpretation of the statute, including by the first Trump administration.
How did Judge Duncan rule?
Trump Judge Kyle Duncan provided the deciding vote in a 2-1 panel decision agreeing with Trump. The opinion was authored by far-right Reagan judge Edith Jones.
A provision of immigration law (Section 1225) denies bond hearings to “aliens seeking admission” to the country unless they are entitled beyond a doubt to be admitted. This law has been applied to people entering the country. Longtime residents have been subject to a different provision (Section 1226), which does allow for release on bond.
But the Trump administration claims that even longtime residents who are undocumented are “aliens seeking admission” and therefore ineligible for a bond hearing. This redefinition has been rejected by nearly every judge to consider it, a number exceeding 160 as of last November.
But Judges Duncan and Jones reversed two of those lower court judges and interpreted the law as Trump requested.
What did Biden Judge Douglas say in dissent?
Biden Judge Dana Douglas wrote an impassioned dissent. She pointed out the “common-sense understanding” that someone who is already in the United States and arrested by immigration officials is not “seeking admission” to the United States. She wrote that if Congress had meant to do something as dramatic as mandate the detention of longtime resident immigrants in the interior of the country as if they had just been apprehended at the border, it would have made that clear.
She wrote that the Congress that passed this law “would be surprised to learn” that it had required the detention without bond of two million people. She said, “nothing in the congressional record or the history of the statute’s enforcement” suggested such a meaning. She also noted that the overwhelming majority of courts to consider the Trump administration’s reinterpretation of the law have recognized it as “totally unsupported.”
Why is the result harmful?
The case endangers immigrant communities throughout the states covered by the Fifth Circuit: Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. It also gives the Trump administration incentive to remove immigrants from other parts of the country and ship them to the Fifth Circuit before legal counsel can intervene, so that they can then be denied a hearing under the law of this circuit.
The ruling shows the importance of having fair-minded judges to protect our rights and freedoms.