The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) must provide bond hearings for certain migrants detained beyond a 90-day threshold.

美國第五巡迴上訴法院裁定，移民與海關執法局 (ICE) 必須為部分被拘留超過 90 日的移民提供保釋聆訊。

The judicial determination centers on the intersection of statutory immigration authority and Fifth Amendment due process protections. The litigation originated from habeas corpus petitions filed by three non-citizens—two Mexican and one Honduran nationals—who possessed long-term residency in the United States, lacked criminal records, and had children with U.S. citizenship. The court's majority opinion, authored by Judge Leslie Southwick, posits that constitutional due process extends to individuals who have established significant domestic ties, regardless of the legality of their initial entry. Consequently, while the government maintains the authority to detain individuals under Section 1225(b)(2)(A) for an initial 90-day period, any extension of detention necessitates an individualized hearing to evaluate flight risks or threats to community safety.

此次司法裁決的核心在於法定移民權限與第五修正案正當法律程序保障的交集。該訴訟源於三名非公民（兩名墨西哥國民及一名洪都拉斯國民）提交的人身保護令申請，他們在美國擁有長期居留權，且無犯罪記錄，並育有美國公民身份的子女。由 Leslie Southwick 法官撰寫的多數意見書認為，無論最初入境是否合法，只要個人已建立深厚的國內聯繫，憲法正當法律程序的保障即適用於其身。因此，儘管政府根據第 1225(b)(2)(A) 條擁有將個人初步拘留 90 日的權限，但任何延期拘留都必須經過個別聆訊，以評估逃跑風險或對社區安全的威脅。

This ruling emerges amidst a broader institutional conflict regarding the classification of non-citizens. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recently expanded its interpretation of 'applicants for admission' to include non-citizens already residing within the U.S., thereby justifying mandatory detention. Although a separate 5th Circuit panel previously upheld this interpretation in February, the current ruling addresses the distinct constitutional question of whether indefinite detention without judicial review is permissible. The decision was reached via a 2-1 vote; Judge James Graves concurred with the outcome but advocated for a more stringent 30-day hearing window. Conversely, Judge Cory Wilson dissented, asserting that the ruling infringes upon the plenary authority granted to Congress over immigration matters and risks destabilizing immigration dockets.

此裁決出現在關於非公民分類更廣泛的體制衝突之中。美國國土安全部 (DHS) 最近擴大了對「入境申請人」的解釋，將已居住在美國境內的非公民亦納入其中，以此證明強制拘留的合理性。儘管第五巡迴法院另一個小組於二月維持了此解釋，但本次裁決處理的是一個截然不同的憲法問題，即在缺乏司法審查的情況下，無限期拘留是否被允許。該決定是以 2 比 1 的投票結果達成；James Graves 法官同意結果，但主張應採取更嚴格的 30 日聆訊窗口。相反，Cory Wilson 法官持反對意見，認為此裁決侵犯了國會在移民事務上被賦予的全權權限，並可能導致移民案件名單陷入混亂。

Parallel to these legal developments, the administration has intensified enforcement operations, characterized by approximately 10,000 arrests over a five-day interval in June. The administration has sought recourse from the Supreme Court to resolve the overarching dispute regarding the legality of mandatory detention for residents who entered without inspection.

與這些法律進展平行的是，政府加強了執法行動，在六月的五天時間內拘捕了約 10,000 人。政府已尋求最高法院的救濟，以解決關於未經查驗入境之居民強制拘留合法性的整體爭議。

The court has established a 90-day limit on detention without a bond hearing, though the administration continues to contest the legality of this requirement.

法院已確立在沒有保釋聆訊的情況下，拘留期限上限為 90 日，儘管政府仍持續質疑此要求的合法性。