Federal Court Rules ICE Can Hold People 'Indefinitely Without Bond': 'Major Win' for Trump Administration

In a ruling from the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the Trump administration has secured a major boost to its immigration enforcement agenda, with the court backing a policy that can require detention without bond hearings for certain non-citizens. The decision applies not only to recent border crossers, but also to some people arrested inside the US, raising fears that detention could stretch for months or years while cases move through the system.

The decision went viral after TikTok account @realtalkus warned viewers that 'ICE can hold you forever', describing it as a 'major win for the Trump administration' in a video reacting to the Fifth Circuit ruling. The creator pointed to a July 2025 policy argument that people who entered the country without inspection can be treated as 'seeking admission' until their immigration cases are fully resolved.

'A Major Win for the Trump Administration'

TikTok account @realtalkus warned the public that 'ICE can hold you forever'. In the clip, he stated that the New Orleans-based court confirmed that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has the authority to hold individuals they arrest for as long as they wish.

'A federal appeals court just ruled that ICE can hold people indefinitely without bond, even if they were arrested inside the US, not at the borders,' the TikTok creator said. 'The ruling came from the US court of appeals for the Fifth Circuit and it's a major win for the Trump administration.'

Under a policy enacted in July 2025, the administration argued that anyone who entered the country without inspection—regardless of how long they have lived in the US—is subject to mandatory detention. The court accepted the government's stance that these individuals are legally 'seeking admission' until their cases are fully resolved.

Writing for the majority, Judge Edith Jones likened the situation to a college application, arguing that a person is seeking admission as long as their application is pending, per Vox. That interpretation allows ICE to bypass bond hearings that had been a feature of immigration proceedings for many people without criminal records.

Previously, nearly 30 years of precedent limited mandatory detention to recent border crossers, but the Fifth Circuit ruled that the 'government's position is correct' in exercising its full statutory authority.

Constitutional Concerns Mount Over Indefinite Holding

Civil rights advocates have condemned the ruling, arguing that denying bond hearings raises serious due process concerns and leaves detainees with little meaningful path to release while their cases are pending. Critics warn that a 'no bond hearing, no release' approach can keep people in detention for the duration of proceedings that often take years.

Judge Dana Douglas, in a strongly worded dissent, warned that this interpretation would allow the government to 'detain millions of people without bond', including those who have been 'the spouses, mothers, fathers, and grandparents of American citizens'.

Online reactions to the decision were heated. 'I really have no words just anger for this, how stupid and heartless are some us for something like this,' one commenter wrote on the TikTok video, while another argued that they had lost trust in the courts, linking their frustration to the wider political climate.

ICE Home Raids Issue

The ruling also lands amid broader arguments over how far ICE can go in enforcing immigration law. In recent weeks, critics have raised alarms about a secret ICE memo that they say would allow federal agents to forcibly raid homes without a search warrant issued and signed by a judge, which some argue violates the Fourth Amendment.

Vice President JD Vance explained that, in their view, 'you can enforce the immigration laws of the country under an administrative order'. Sen Richard Blumenthal called the approach 'unlawful and morally repugnant', arguing that administrative warrants 'do not rise to the level of judicial warrant'.

Vance said that if a court ruled administrative warrants were insufficient to raid a home, the administration would follow the court's orders.

The issues involving ICE are polarising, and many citizens are in direct opposition to what the administration is campaigning for.