Trump REFUSES Court Order – Locks Up 2 Million Immigrants

Two million immigrants, including spouses and grandparents of U.S. citizens, face indefinite detention without bond hearings as the Trump administration defies decades of precedent and conflicting court orders.

Story Highlights

Trump administration reversed 30-year bipartisan practice in July 2024 by mandating detention for all noncitizens without bond hearings.
Federal courts issued mixed rulings, with Texas and California granting bond opportunities while the 5th Circuit upheld detention on February 7, 2026.
Attorney General Pam Bondi hails victories as blows against activist judges, prioritizing law and order.
Dissenting Judge Dana M. Douglas warns Congress never intended mass detention of family members of Americans.
Ongoing litigation and judicial staff cuts signal deepening constitutional clash over executive power.

Timeline of Policy Reversal and Court Battles

Trump administration enacted mandatory detention for all noncitizens in July 2024, ending 30 years of precedent where those arrested away from borders without criminal records received bond hearings. Texas district court granted bond to detainees in October 2024. California district court followed in November 2024, allowing no-criminal-history immigrants bond requests. These rulings clashed with administration policy, sparking appeals.

5th Circuit Delivers Major Victory for Detention Policy

5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 on February 7, 2026, that the administration can detain immigrants without bond hearings. Circuit Judge Edith H. Jones wrote that unadmitted aliens apprehended anywhere in the U.S. remain ineligible for bond regardless of residency length. This decision overruled lower courts and affirmed executive interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Attorney General Pam Bondi celebrated the ruling as a significant blow against activist judges. She pledged to vindicate President Trump’s law and order agenda in courtrooms nationwide. Bondi referred cases to herself to vacate opposing judges’ decisions, asserting statutory authority for maximum enforcement.

Dissent Highlights Congressional Intent and Family Impacts

Circuit Judge Dana M. Douglas dissented, arguing the policy rubber-stamps legislation by executive fiat. She stated Congress would be surprised to learn the Immigration and Nationality Act mandates detaining 2 million people, many spouses, mothers, fathers, and grandparents of U.S. citizens. This view aligns with three decades of bipartisan practice balancing enforcement and due process.

Douglas’s dissent carries weight under conservative principles of limited executive power and respect for legislative intent. Facts support her position: prior administrations granted bond to low-risk interior arrestees, reflecting common-sense restraint against mass detention of family-tied individuals.

Trump Admin Refuses To Comply With Immigration Court Order https://t.co/167h3E48pc

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) February 8, 2026

Broader Enforcement Strategies and Systemic Changes

Administration expanded expedited removal to bypass hearings and fired over 100 experienced immigration judges while cutting half the appellate review body. Immigration courts now face 3+ million pending cases amid these reductions. Congress introduced legislation to protect routine legal hearings, signaling pushback against perceived overreach.

Legal organizations claim systematic due process dismantling, but administration counters with national security needs. Conflicting district rulings persist across jurisdictions, with Supreme Court vacating a prior 5th Circuit judgment in AARP v. Trump over due process concerns. Ultimate resolution remains pending.