# The Constitution holds, a court reins in Trump on immigration > Introduction: a judicial slap on unlimited detention - Author: Maxime Marquette - Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co) - Section: Editorial - Published: 2026-07-03 - Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/editorial-la-constitution-resiste-un-tribunal-freine-trump-sur-limmigration ## Key takeaways - A divided 5th Circuit panel ruled that migrants detained for more than 90 days must receive a bond hearing, affecting people held in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. - Judge Leslie Southwick, appointed by George W. Bush, wrote the majority opinion, relying on a 2001 Supreme Court ruling that due process protects people present on U.S. soil. - Judge Cory Wilson, appointed by Trump, dissented, citing Congress's plenary authority over immigration. - The dispute traces to a July 2025 ICE memo broadening the definition of "applicant for admission," later formalized by the Board of Immigration Appeals. - The DHS disagreed with the ruling and had asked the Supreme Court to review a similar decision, and the author expects Supreme Court intervention. ## Introduction: a judicial slap on unlimited **detention** ### A **ruling** that curbs **Trump's** **detention** power A divided federal appeals court restricted the **Trump** **administration's** ability on Thursday to indefinitely detain thousands of im**migrants** without a **bond hearing**. The **ruling** from the **5th Circuit Court of Appeals**, based in New Orleans, now requires bond hearings after **90 days of detention** (Reuters, July 2, 2026). This ruling potentially affects thousands of people held by **Immigration and Customs Enforcement** (**ICE**) in the states of **Texas** and **Louisiana**, as part of **Donald Trump's** broader immigration crackdown. ### Why this ruling deserves an editorial, not just a brief I chose to write an editorial, not a simple news brief, because this ruling touches a fundamental principle I consider non-negotiable: no **democracy** worthy of the name should be able to lock up a human being indefinitely without at least letting a judge review the case. That is precisely the principle three federal **judges**, two of them appointed by Republican presidents, just reaffirmed against an **administration** that seemed determined to bypass it through a bold reinterpretation of a decades-old law. ## A split ruling, but a clear principle ### An unexpected majority The ruling, handed down by a panel voting **two judges to one**, was written by Judge **Leslie Southwick**, appointed by Republican President **George W. Bush**. He relied on a **2001 Supreme Court** ruling that clearly establishes that the **due process** clause protects anyone present on U.S. soil. Judge Southwick wrote a line that will stand, in my view, as one of the finest judicial defenses of America's founding principles this year: "It is part of the historical majesty of this ancient founding charter that it makes no exception in granting **fundamental rights** to those within our borders, including the right to be heard when personal liberty is at stake." ### A dissent that raises concern Judge **Cory Wilson**, appointed by **Trump** himself, dissented, accusing the majority of "marginalizing the Constitution's explicit grant of plenary authority over immigration matters to Congress." This dissent illustrates the depth of the legal disagreement currently running through the American judicial system on this issue. I note with some relief that even a judge appointed by Trump, on a different panel, was on occasion able to side with constitutional protections rather than blindly follow the line of the administration that appointed him. ## The origin of a massive **detention policy** ### A radical reinterpretation of the law This legal battle traces back to an **ICE** memo dated **July 2025**, which radically broadened the definition of "**applicant for admission**" to include nearly all undocumented im**migrants** present in the country, regardless of how many years they had lived there. This reinterpretation, later formalized by the **Board of Immigration Appeals** in September, led immigration judges across the country to order mass mandatory detentions, with no possibility of **bail** for those affected. ### A policy that could potentially affect millions of people According to several immigrant rights organizations, this interpretation could, if fully applied, amount to the broadest **mass detention** mandate without bail in U.S. history, potentially affecting millions of **non-citizens** who have lived in the country for decades in some cases. It is precisely this scale that explains why so many federal courts, across several different circuits, have chosen to directly oppose this reinterpretation, despite the political pressure exerted by the Trump administration. ## The reaction from the administration and **immigrant advocates** ### The Department of Homeland Security holds its ground A spokesperson for the **Department of Homeland Security** (**DHS**) said the agency disagreed with the ruling and remained confident in its legal position on mandatory detention, noting that the administration had, the week **before**, specifically asked the **Supreme Court** to review a similar ruling from another appeals court. This insistence on bringing the case before the country's highest court confirms that the **Trump** administration considers this legal fight important enough to be settled definitively at the top of the American judicial system. ### Relief among defense **lawyers** **Rebecca Cassler**, a lawyer representing the affected migrants at the **American Immigration Council**, said she was "thrilled that the panel recognized the fundamental **constitutional principle** that the due process clause does not allow the government to lock them up indefinitely." This reaction reflects palpable relief among immigrant rights advocates, who have spent months filing legal challenges against a policy they consider fundamentally incompatible with American constitutional guarantees. ## A national judicial rift that keeps deepening ### A country split between favorable and unfavorable circuits This ruling adds to a growing **national judicial rift**: the **2nd**, **6th**, and **11th Circuits** have already rejected the administration's interpretation, while the **5th** and **8th Circuits** had initially upheld it in **earlier** rulings issued by different panels, before this new partial reversal by the **5th Circuit** on the specific question of bond hearings. This split among federal circuits creates a legally untenable situation in the long run: the **fundamental rights** of an immigrant facing deportation now vary radically depending on which U.S. state they are detained in, an in**consistency** that only the **Supreme Court** can ultimately resolve. ### The inevitable path to the **Supreme Court** This split among circuits makes Supreme Court intervention practically inevitable in the coming months. The Trump administration itself has already requested such intervention, a sign it anticipates a decisive legal battle before the country's highest court. I expect this issue to become one of the most closely watched immigration cases of the year before the Supreme Court, with direct implications for hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people currently facing immigration proceedings. ## What this ruling reveals about the American rule of law ### A judicial system that resists, despite everything Despite the considerable political pressure the **Trump** administration has placed on the entire federal judicial apparatus, this ruling confirms that American courts largely continue to play their constitutional role of checking and balancing potential excesses of the **executive branch**. More than **300 federal judges** have already ruled against the administration's mass **detention policy**, compared with only about fifteen who upheld its position, several of them judges appointed by Trump himself, a strong signal about the legal fragility of this policy. ### A partial **victory**, not a total **victory** It would nonetheless be wrong to celebrate this ruling as a definitive victory: it only imposes a **bond hearing after 90 days**, which still leaves the administration free to detain immigrants with no chance of release for an extended period before any judicial review of their case. I see this ruling as an important step, but an insufficient one, toward fully restoring constitutional protections for all residents of U.S. territory, whether citizens or not. ## An explosive political backdrop around immigration ### An issue at the heart of Trump's agenda The **mass detention** policy fits within a broader context in which the **Trump** administration has made immigration enforcement one of the absolute priorities of his second term, multiplying executive actions designed to maximize **deportations** and deter illegal immigration by every means available. This court ruling comes as the administration also faces other setbacks in court on related immigration matters, suggesting a broader executive strategy that systematically tests the constitutional limits of presidential power over immigration. ### A political base demanding more toughness Despite these repeated legal setbacks, **Trump's** political base continues to demand greater toughness on immigration issues, creating constant political pressure on the administration to maintain, or even intensify, its detention policies despite successive legal defeats. This political dynamic partly explains why the administration persists in bringing these cases before the Supreme Court rather than voluntarily adjusting its policy in response to unfavorable federal appeals court rulings. ## What this actually changes for detained migrants ### Bond hearings finally within reach In practical terms, this **5th Circuit** ruling means that thousands of migrants held for more than 90 days in **Texas**, **Louisiana**, and **Mississippi** will now be able to request a hearing before an immigration judge to argue for **bail**, rather than languishing indefinitely in detention with no clear path out. For immigration lawyers, this development represents a concrete legal tool they can invoke immediately on behalf of their detained clients, turning an abstract legal victory into a practical, immediate remedy before regional immigration courts. ### Uncertainty that lingers nonetheless Real uncertainty remains, however, about the uniform application of this ruling, since the **Trump** administration could seek to delay its implementation or pile on procedural obstacles to concretely limit the number of migrants who actually benefit from these new bond hearings. This gray area between the legal principle established by the court and its day-to-day application on the ground illustrates just how fragile and potentially reversible this victory remains, real as it is, should the administration decide to resist enforcing it. ## Conclusion: a principle to defend, not just celebrate ### A battle far from over This **5th Circuit** ruling does not end the broader legal battle over the **Trump** administration's immigration detention policy. It is instead a step, important but partial, in a legal fight that will likely continue all the way to the Supreme Court in the coming months. I will keep following this case with the conviction that defending fundamental constitutional principles, including for **non-citizens**, remains an essential responsibility for any democracy that claims to embody the **rule of law** before the entire world. ### What the **West** should take from this fight While I relentlessly defend Western democracies against authoritarian regimes like **Russia**, **China**, **Iran**, or **North Korea**, I believe that same standard of respect for fundamental rights must also apply, without exception, within our own Western borders. It is precisely this consistency between the principles defended abroad and the practices applied at home that gives the **West** its true moral **legitimacy** against regimes that recognize none of these constitutional limits. **By Maxime Marquette, columnist** ## Columnist's transparency note ### Editorial stance I am not a journalist but a **columnist and analyst**. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies. I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. **I claim analytical clarity**, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events. ### Method and sources This text keeps the basic distinction between **verified facts and interpretive analysis**. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under **Sources**, never here. **Primary source families** used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies. **Secondary source families**: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations. When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under **Sources**. ### Nature of the analysis The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a **critical, contextual synthesis** based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted. My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors. This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text. ## Sources ### Primary sources - [Reuters — Trump administration cannot hold migrants without bond hearings past 90 days, court rules, July 2, 2026](https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/trump-administration-cannot-hold-migrants-without-bond-hearings-past-90-days-2026-07-02/) - [NBC News — Four court rulings are challenging a key tenet of Trump's immigration policy, July 2, 2026](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mandatory-detention-court-ruling-trump-immigration-policy-rcna352556) ### Secondary sources - [Politico — A fourth appeals court rejects ICE mass detention policy, June 30, 2026](https://www.politico.com/news/2026/06/30/mandatory-detention-10-circuit-ruling-00983227) - [American Civil Liberties Union — Federal Appeals Court Rules Against Trump Administration's New Mandatory Detention Policy, 2026](https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/federal-appeals-court-rules-against-trump-administrations-new-mandatory-detention-policy) - [Politico — More than 300 judges rebuff Trump's immigrant detention policy, January 5, 2026](https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/05/trump-administration-immigrants-mandatory-detention-00709494) - [The Guardian — international coverage of U.S. immigration policy, 2026](https://www.theguardian.com/international) --- Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/editorial-la-constitution-resiste-un-tribunal-freine-trump-sur-limmigration