Departing from decades of consistent practice across presidential administrations, the Trump administration instituted a new policy regarding immigrants who live in the United States but who entered the country without proper admission status. Under this new policy, the government is incarcerating all such people while deportation proceedings are brought against them, instead of providing bail hearings in which a neutral judge decides whether a particular individual is a flight risk or threat to the public. As a result, countless people have been detained by the government without any opportunity for a hearing or any showing that their detention is necessary.

One of these individuals is Aleksei Morozov. Mr. Morozov and his family fled persecution in Russia over their support for the pro-democracy movement and are seeking asylum in the United States. They were granted humanitarian parole, and lived in the United States for three years as active members of their community. Despite his ongoing asylum case, Mr. Morozov was pulled over and arrested in November 2025, and subsequently jailed without a bail hearing. The government accused him of lacking legal status despite their own documents showing he had obtained humanitarian parole and work authorization. He challenged the constitutionality of his detention in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota, which agreed he must be released. The government appealed that decision to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. In September 2026, the Constitutional Accountability Center filed an amicus brief explaining why the Trump administration policy that led to Mr. Morozov’s detention, even if it were authorized by the nation’s immigration laws, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

First, noncitizens residing in the United States have the same constitutional protection against arbitrary imprisonment that citizens do. Unlike constitutional provisions that refer to “citizens,” the Fifth Amendment declares that no “person” shall be deprived of liberty without due process of law. The Supreme Court has long held that this sweeping safeguard covers noncitizens who are within the United States, regardless of their legal status or whether they entered the country without permission. This principle is faithful to the Amendment’s deliberately worded text and to the Framers’ original understanding, both of which reflected a legal tradition in which noncitizens had the right to protect their personal liberty just like citizens did, and were detained only under the same circumstances as citizens.

Second, Supreme Court precedent does not allow categorical detention of every person in the country who allegedly lacks proper admission status. Outside of a narrow set of circumstances inapplicable to the policy at hand, the Court has never permitted mandatory detention without bond hearings during deportation proceedings.

Finally, denying bail hearings to every person who lacks proper admission status violates the Due Process Clause. As the Supreme Court has explained, freedom from imprisonment “lies at the heart” of the liberty that the Clause protects, and detention without trial is a “carefully limited exception” to that freedom, which must be accompanied by strong procedural protections to guard against mistaken or unjustified detention. Accordingly, the government typically may imprison people without a criminal trial only by persuading an impartial decisionmaker of the need for detention after a fair hearing. This rule protects all people in the United States, regardless of their legal status. The government therefore cannot indiscriminately imprison noncitizens without showing the need for detention in a fair hearing.