A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that the Trump administration cannot deny immigrants detained inside the U.S. the opportunity for release on bond, deepening a split among federal courts over the policy. The 2-1 decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco rejected the administration’s expanded mandatory detention policy, which was part of President Donald Trump’s mass deportation plan. The ruling was notable as it included a judge appointed by Trump in the majority.
The decision adds to a growing divide among federal appeals courts. Four other circuits—the 2nd, 6th, 7th, and 11th—have also rejected the policy, while the 5th and 8th Circuits have sided with the administration. The deepening split raises the likelihood that the U.S. Supreme Court will eventually take up the case. The administration has asked the high court to consider the issue.
Policy Background and Legal Arguments
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has argued that the 1996 Immigration and Nationality Act allows for mandatory detention of immigrants inside the U.S., a policy previous administrations did not enforce. The Trump administration expanded this policy last year, leading to lawsuits by immigrants seeking release. Some federal judges have criticized the administration for violating court orders requiring bond hearings.
In the 9th Circuit ruling, Judge Daniel Bress, a Trump appointee, wrote that the text and historical understanding of the law do not support the administration’s interpretation. The dissenting judge, Carlos Bea, argued that the policy is lawful under the statute. The administration has said it will continue to enforce the policy, calling it necessary for public safety.
Implications and Next Steps
The ruling could impact thousands of immigrants currently detained without bond hearings. Legal experts say the Supreme Court’s eventual involvement is likely, given the circuit split. The administration has until now relied on the 5th and 8th Circuit rulings to justify its policy, but the growing opposition in other circuits weakens its legal position.
The case highlights broader tensions over immigration enforcement, with critics arguing the policy violates due process and supporters maintaining it is necessary to deter illegal immigration and ensure public safety.