A divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit on Thursday blocked a Trump-era ICE policy that allowed mandatory detention of certain immigrants without bond hearings, citing parallels to World War II Japanese internment camps in its 2-1 ruling.
The decision marks a new legal setback for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which had argued that millions of undocumented immigrants could be held indefinitely without judicial review. The ruling deepens a growing split among federal appeals courts, increasing the likelihood of a Supreme Court review to resolve the dispute.
Court Rejects Government’s Broad Detention Authority
The majority opinion, written by Judge Toby Heytens (appointed by President Joe Biden) and joined by Judge Barbara Milano Keenan (an Obama appointee), found that the government’s interpretation of immigration law lacked clear congressional authorization. The judges warned that the policy could subject millions of long-term residents to detention without due process, drawing historical comparisons to past U.S. detention programs.
"Mass detention of marginalized individuals without due process harkens back to some of the darkest moments in our country’s history," the majority wrote, referencing the Geary Act of 1892 (which targeted Chinese immigrants) and the WWII internment of Japanese Americans, where nearly 120,000 people were confined.
Dissenting Opinion Challenges Legal Reasoning
Judge Allison Jones Rushing, a Trump appointee, dissented, arguing that the court had overreached by second-guessing Congress’s intent. She contended that the Immigration and Nationality Act already grants ICE broad detention authority and that the majority’s ruling undermined immigration enforcement.
Policy Implications and Next Steps
The ruling applies to immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for extended periods and are fighting deportation. It requires bond hearings for those detained under the disputed policy, though the scope of who qualifies remains under debate. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has not yet indicated whether it will appeal to the Supreme Court, but legal experts say the circuit split makes Supreme Court intervention likely.
The case stems from a 2019 lawsuit filed by immigrant rights groups, which argued that ICE’s detention practices violated constitutional due process guarantees. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other advocacy organizations hailed the decision as a vindication of immigrant rights, while immigration hardliners criticized it as judicial overreach that could hamper deportations.
Background: The Legal Battle Over ICE Detention
The dispute centers on Section 236(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which ICE has interpreted as allowing mandatory detention for immigrants convicted of certain crimes or deemed a flight risk. Critics argue the law was never intended to apply to long-term residents with no criminal record, while supporters say it is necessary to prevent absconding.
The 4th Circuit’s decision aligns with rulings from the 9th Circuit but conflicts with the 6th Circuit, creating a split that often prompts Supreme Court review. Legal analysts note that the high court has historically deferred to Congress on immigration matters, but the historical framing in this case could influence its deliberations.
What Comes Next?
The Biden administration has not yet signaled whether it will revise the policy in response to the ruling. Meanwhile, immigrant rights groups are pushing for broader reforms, including an end to mandatory detention entirely. The case’s progression to the Supreme Court could take months or years, depending on whether the DOJ files a petition for review.