A divided federal appellate panel ruled Friday in favor of the Trump administration’s policy of locking up most undocumented immigrants without bond, a decision that legal experts called a serious blow to due process.

A three-judge panel of the right-wing 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled 2-1 that President Donald Trump’s reversal of three decades of practice by previous administrations is legally sound under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA). The ruling reverses two lower court orders.

“The text [of the IIRIRA] says what it says, regardless of the decisions of prior administrations,” Judge Edith Jones—an appointee of former President Ronald Reagan—wrote for the majority. “That prior administrations decided to use less than their full enforcement authority... does not mean they lacked the authority to do more.”

Writing in dissent, Judge Dana M. Douglas, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, asserted that “the Congress that passed IIRIRA would be surprised to learn it had also required the detention without bond of two million people. For almost 30 years there was no sign anyone thought it had done so, and nothing in the congressional record or the history of the statute’s enforcement suggests that it did.”

“Nonetheless, the government today asserts the authority and mandate to detain millions of noncitizens in the interior, some of them present here for decades, on the same terms as if they were apprehended at the border,” Douglas added. “No matter that this newly discovered mandate arrives without historical precedent, and in the teeth of one of the core distinctions of immigration law. The overwhelming majority elsewhere have recognized that the government’s position is totally unsupported.”

Past administration generally allowed unauthorized immigrants who had lived in the United States for years to attend bond hearings, at which they had a chance to argue before immigration judges that they posed no flight risk and should be permitted to contest their deportation without detention.

Mandatory detention by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was generally reserved for convicted criminals or people who recently entered the country illegally.

However, the Trump administration contends that anyone who entered the United States without authorization at any time can be detained pending deportation, with limited discretionary exceptions for humanitarian or public interest cases. As a result, immigrants who have lived in the US for years or even decades are being detained indefinitely, even if they have no criminal records.

According to a POLITICO analysis, more than 360 judges across the country—including dozens of Trump appointees—have rejected the administration’s interpretation of ICE’s detention power, while just 26 sided with the administration.

While US Attorney General Pam Bondi hailed Friday’s ruling as a “significant blow against activist judges who have been undermining our efforts to make America safe again at every turn,” some legal experts said the decision erodes constitutional rights.

“AWFUL news for due process,” American Immigration Council senior fellow Aaron Reichlin-Melnick said on social media in response to Friday’s ruling. “This decision will wipe out the availability of release through bond for tens of thousands of people detained in or transported to Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi by ICE.”

While Friday’s ruling only applies to those three states, which fall under the 5th Circuit Court’s jurisdiction, there are numerous legal challenges to the administration’s detention policy in courts across the country.

Attorney General Pam Bondi is scheduled to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, Feb. 11, but according to journalist Aaron Parnas, Republicans on the committee have been instructed not to mention the Justice Department’s botched release of files on Jeffrey Epstein.

“Epstein survivors tell me that they were told in meetings with Republican lawmakers that everyone was supportive of asking Pam Bondi hard questions about the Epstein files,” Parnas wrote in a statement shared on social media Saturday.

“But, afterwards, they were told by a source in the Republican establishment that those questions won’t be asked. Republicans members have been told to avoid any questions about the files and to only focus on the ‘positives’ that Bondi accomplished.”

Bondi is among the most scrutinized Trump administration officials regarding the DOJ’s botched handling of its investigation into Epstein. Last year, Bondi told Fox News that Epstein’s supposed “client list” of powerful figures was “sitting on my desk right now,” only to later sign off on a DOJ memo that stated Epstein never maintained a client list.

Under Bondi’s leadership, the DOJ appeared fully prepared to shut down all further inquiries into Epstein until it was forced last fall to produce files after the passage of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, a bill that passed amid fierce pushback from President Donald Trump, at least initially.

Even with the recent release of around 3.5 million Epstein files, critics say that the DOJ and the Trump administration are still in direct violation of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which required the DOJ to release all of its files on Epstein, and with redactions limited to protecting the identity of minors and victims.

Instead, the DOJ has said it intends on withholding millions of more files. The agency appeared to have also redacted published files beyond what the law permits.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) turned heads Saturday after announcing that he planned on introducing Democratic lawmakers’ reform package for Immigration and Customs Enforcement on the Senate floor, a move that drew sharp backlash from MAGA-aligned conservatives.

“While I believe the Democrats’ proposal regarding ICE and immigration are fatally flawed and will take us backward on immigration enforcement, I think it deserves a vote in the U.S. senate,” Graham wrote Saturday in a social media post on X.

“Therefore, if no one else will, I will introduce the Democrat package to ensure it gets a vote on the floor – and I will enthusiastically vote no.”

Despite Graham’s pledge to vote against the package – which, if enacted, would prohibit ICE agents from wearing masks and enforce stricter guardrails around their operations – his proposal was met with fury from a number of MAGA faithful, many of whom demanded he instead focus on the SAVE Act, the voting requirements bill backed by President Donald Trump.

“As of right now everything takes a backseat until you PASS THE SAVE ACT!” wrote X user “Art S,” a pro-Republican, pro-Trump self-described MAGA follower with more than 10,000 followers, in a social media post on X.

“Really?” asked another, X user “AZ Patriot,” another self-described pro-Trump MAGA follower. “WHAT ABOUT THE SAVE ACT LINDSEY???? You’re willing to put this ahead of the save act that we’ve been waiting on for 7 Months.”

Graham has been a strong supporter of Trump’s immigration policy, and has pushed for legislation to punish so-called "sanctuary cities” that conservative critics argue don’t sufficiently cooperate with federal immigration enforcement officials.

And, while Graham made clear that he would vote against the Democratic Party-backed package on reining in ICE after introducing it, he was still hit by conservative critics by the dozens.