Mandatory Detention, Unfavorable Districts, and Texas
As I reflect on the Midwest Immigration Bond Fund’s work in the early weeks of 2026, one number stands out: 93 releases. For comparison, in 2025, MIBF posted 87 bonds over the entire year. This surge in bond posting activity aligns with broader immigration enforcement trends, particularly the intensified targeting of sanctuary cities across the United States.
As a member of our bond posting team, I’m proud of the work our small squad has accomplished recently, but I can’t help but recognize that our efforts are a reflection of a much larger, troubling pattern: increased detention, forced separation from support systems, and the relocation of detainees to distant and isolated areas, primarily Texas.
A recent ruling by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, covering Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, has further complicated matters. The court issued a ruling, stating that individuals who enter the U.S. without inspection are subject to mandatory detention, making them ineligible for bond. Shortly after, in California, District Judge Sunshine Sykes struck a blow against this system by ruling that the Trump administration had blatantly ignored her earlier decision in the Maldonado-Bautista case. This ruling found that denying bond to individuals in ICE custody was unconstitutional. As part of her order, Judge Sykes directed the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to notify detained individuals of their potential eligibility for bond.
DHS, unsurprisingly, is pushing back, though it seems they’re still fumbling through how to navigate this shift in immigration detention policies.
For immigration judges, (who, it’s important to note, are quasi-federal officials serving at the pleasure of the Attorney General rather than as members of an independent judiciary,) the 5th Circuit’s mandatory detention ruling creates a tense legal landscape. In Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, these judges are caught between enforcing the 5th Circuit’s decision while facing mounting pressure from nationwide legal actions that are helping more detainees secure release.
So, what is DHS doing in response? They’re transporting people from where they are detained—often areas where they could qualify for Judge Sykes’ class action—to more “favorable” jurisdictions where the 5th Circuit’s ruling prevails. Essentially, individuals are being fast-tracked to Texas, where they face the harshest consequences of this ruling.
What makes this even more difficult is that many of these folks have no meaningful ties to Texas. They are often placed in regions where they have no support networks and little access to resources. Even when granted bond, they face a daunting challenge: navigating their way back home. In some cases, our team has worked with attorneys and families trying to support their loved ones after they are dropped off at shelters or left stranded at bus stations or airports, forced to find their way home on their own.
The complexities of this system only underscore the urgent need for continued advocacy—and, ultimately, abolition. While bond postings may provide some relief, they are individual solutions to a problem that is fundamentally systemic. As long as policies continue to prioritize enforcement and mandatory detention, the United States immigration detention system will remain a site of isolation, instability, and injustice.