How District Court Judges Are Defying Pro-Trump Immigration Rulings, Explained:

WHAT HAPPENED: U.S. District Court judges are seeking ways to counter a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that has cleared the way for the Trump administration to continue detaining illegal immigrants without issuing bond.

WHO WAS INVOLVED: Judges from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and federal district judges in Texas.

WHEN & WHERE: Rulings made throughout February 2026.

KEY QUOTE: The Fifth Circuit ruling “has no bearing on this Court’s determination of whether [the petitioner] is being detained in violation of his constitutional right to procedural due process.” — District Court Judge Kathleen Cardone

IMPACT: The lower court actions appear to be a flagrant attempt to undermine the higher court precedent in the service of advancing a political agenda favorable to illegal immigrants.

A group of U.S. District Court judges are utilizing several workarounds to avoid conflicting with a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling from Friday that cleared the way for the Trump administration to continue detaining illegal immigrants without issuing bond. The Fifth Circuit’s ruling found that “unadmitted aliens apprehended anywhere in the United States are ineligible for release on bond, regardless of how long they have resided inside the United States.”

However, two federal district court judges in Texas—so far—believe they have identified a loophole in the appellate court ruling that allows lower courts to continue issuing bond releases for illegal immigrants based on constitutional grounds. District Court Judges Kathleen Cardone—a Bush appointee—and David Briones—a Clinton appointee—both contend in rulings made earlier this week that the Fifth Circuit ruling “has no bearing on this Court’s determination of whether [the petitioner] is being detained in violation of his constitutional right to procedural due process.”

Both judges insist a “liberty interest” must be considered in relation to immigration bond requests. Judge Briones wrote in his ruling on Monday, “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.”

The rulings by both judges appear to be a blatant attempt to circumvent the Fifth Circuit ruling, which had shot down claims that because the former Biden government used executive discretion to grant some bond requests—mostly involving illegal immigrants with so-called “established connections” to the United States—the policy was binding on the Trump White House. “That prior Administrations decided to use less than their full enforcement authority under [the law] does not mean they lacked the authority to do more,” Circuit Judge Edith H. Jones wrote for the two-to-one Fifth Circuit majority.

Notably, illegal immigrants have filed an unprecedented number of “habeas” petitions across Louisiana and Texas, where the Fifth Circuit has jurisdiction. Meanwhile, several other district court judges outside the Fifth Circuit’s jurisdiction—and almost exclusively Biden appointees—slammed the Friday ruling. New Jersey District Court Judge Evelyn Padin—a Biden appointee—said she was “unpersuaded” by the ruling, while Colorado District Court Judge Charlotte Sweeney—also appointed by Biden—accused the circuit court of paying merely  “lip service” to the law.

The National Pulse reported in March of last year that, in his first two months in office, President Donald J. Trump faced over 100 legal challenges to his administration’s policies, more than double the number faced by any other president at the same point in their term.

Image by Katrin Bolovtsova.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.