Even so, lower court judges in those states have still crafted orders for the release of illegal immigrants in an effort to skirt the appeals court’s ruling.

Working around the 5th Circuit’s ruling

Despite the win for the administration at the appellate level, some district court judges under the 5th Circuit have still found other ways to attempt to justify releasing illegal immigrants from detention. U.S. District Judges Kathleen Cardone and David Briones have both issued orders since the 5th Circuit’s Friday ruling, seemingly skirting the finding that the mandatory detention policy is lawful.

Briones said illegal immigrants and noncitizens who have been in the country for longer periods of time should be exempt from the mandatory detention policy.

“The Court reiterates its original holding that noncitizens who have ‘established connections’ in the United States by virtue of living in the country for a substantial period acquire a liberty interest in being free from government detention without due process of law,” Briones said in a Monday order.

“Because the Government released Petitioner and permitted him to live in the United States for over a year, they cannot revoke that liberty without an individualized determination of the need to do so,” the ruling reads.

Both federal judges cited constitutional due process rights as the rationale for releasing the illegal immigrants from indefinite detention. The rulings claim the 5th Circuit’s finding last week does not affect their previous holdings — something legal experts do not believe will hold up under scrutiny.

“Good luck with that,” Andrew Arthur, the Center for Immigration’s resident fellow in law and policy, told the Washington Examiner.

Arthur said the theory of a “liberty interest” has already been struck down by the Supreme Court, pointing to the high court’s 2018 ruling in Jennings v. Rodriguez. In that case, the Supreme Court struck down the 9th Circuit’s finding that illegal immigrants detained indefinitely must be subject to bond hearings every six months under a similar liberty interest.

The federal district judges are essentially attempting to find jurisdiction to rule where they have none, Arthur said.

Bill Shipley, a former federal prosecutor, noted that federal immigration law allows for the type of detentions pursued by the Trump administration, and that “act of legislating was all ‘The process that was due.’”

“There are numerous Supreme Court cases that hold the legislative process is all the ‘procedural due process’ required by the Fifth Amendment. Congress put mandatory detention in the statute,” Shipley said in a post on X.

Beyond the 5th Circuit, challenges to Trump’s mandatory detention policy remain a massive rebuttal headed to the highest court.

Mandatory detention challenges appear poised to go to the Supreme Court

The Trump administration’s mandatory detention policy has been litigated throughout federal courts across the country, with the administration losing hundreds of habeas corpus cases filed by illegal immigrants challenging their detention.

The 5th Circuit is in the highest court yet to rule on the mandatory detention policy. The deliberation, however, has caused split opinions across the district courts, and it is set to be ruled on by other circuit courts in the coming months, creating a possible split between the appeals courts. Those types of splits tend to head toward the Supreme Court.

“This is one of those things the Supreme Court needs to resolve sooner rather than later, because this is sapping the vital energy out of the district courts and out of DOJ because there are just so many of these cases,” Arthur said. “You can have boilerplate briefs all you want. Judges still have to rule on them. Attorneys still have to show up in court to argue.”

The volume of habeas corpus cases filed in immigration detention cases has been significant, and at times overwhelming, for some federal judicial districts. In Minnesota, where the administration has recently focused immigration enforcement operations, judges from other federal districts have had to rule on pending habeas corpus petitions, and the losses for the administration have racked up.

Arthur said the high court should look at what the district court, as a separate entity, has examined relating to immigration challenges. He specifically said the Supreme Court needs to look at whether the district courts can even reconsider immigration authorities’ determinations regarding an illegal immigrant. Federal immigration law mandates that virtually all immigration cases must be litigated in immigration courts, which are administrative and are totally separate from the district court system.

“The Supreme Court is going to have to step in at some point and define what their jurisdiction is, because the statute is written pretty clearly, but it’s never going to be clearly enough to convince a district court judge that he doesn’t have jurisdiction,” Arthur said. “It’s only when the Supreme Court rules that it’s going to make an issue.”

He also pointed to federal law that states the Department of Homeland Security’s determination of an immigrant’s application may not be subject to judicial review regarding parole or bond, and said the Supreme Court must determine whether Congress’s stripping of that jurisdiction also applies to habeas corpus petitions.

“Either the Supreme Court needs to say that provision doesn’t include habeas, or that provision is unconstitutional, or that provision means what it says: You don’t have any jurisdiction to release any alien if DHS doesn’t want to release,” Arthur told the Washington Examiner.

LEGAL WAR OVER TRUMP’S IMMIGRATION DETENTION POLICY FAR FROM OVER DESPITE KEY WIN

The Supreme Court has already taken up challenges to several controversial administration matters, including birthright citizenship, tariffs, and independent agency head firings.

“This is a hotly contested political issue,” Arthur said. “[Chief Justice] John Roberts doesn’t want his courts involved in hotly contested political issues. They want to get it resolved as quickly as possible.”