DHS slammed for contorting law 'beyond recognition' to 'hide elephants in mouseholes'
A federal appeals court rejected the Trump administration's bid to jail longtime undocumented immigrants without bond in a major setback to his mass deportation plan.
On Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit handed down a 2-1 decision that held that immigrants who crossed into the country without inspection years ago are governed by a statute that permits release on bond. It shot down the Trump administration's argument that they're subject to a mandatory-detention provision that it used to hold them indefinitely.
The Trump administration argued that anyone deemed an applicant for admission is necessarily "seeking admission" and can be detained without a bond hearing. The court rejected the framing in its ruling.
"Because we conclude that the term 'seeking admission' means seeking lawful entry," Judge Lara Montecalvo wrote. The case centered on Guerrero Orellana, who "already entered the country unlawfully," the court noted, adding, "We hold that he is not 'seeking admission.'"
For the majority "to conclude otherwise would defy the plain language of the statute," Montecalvo argued.
At oral argument, attorneys for the Trump administration similarly argued that the immigrants seeking admission had not "yet" entered lawfully. Montecalvo rejected it, writing that the argument "contorts the plain meaning of 'entry'...beyond recognition."
The ruling unwinds a July 2025 Department of Homeland Security policy that was later made binding by the Board of Immigration Appeals. It reclassified longtime residents into no-bond detention.
The shift helped drive an effort by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to detain a population of roughly 73,000 by January 2026, according to the court's opinion, which described it as "the highest level" of detention ever recorded. The court noted that the Trump administration's practices were contrary to historic practices.
"Over three decades, five administrations implemented the disputed statutes just as we conclude today that their texts require," Montecalvo wrote, adding that Congress "does not...hide elephants in mouseholes."