Key facts
- The Trump administration cannot deny immigrants detained inside the U.S. a chance for release on bond.
- The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 2-1 decision against the administration's policy.
- The ruling deepens a split among federal appeals courts, with four rejecting the policy and two siding with the administration.
- The expanding circuit split increases the likelihood of the U.S. Supreme Court taking up the issue.
- Previous administrations generally reserved mandatory detention for those arrested at the border.
A federal appeals court has rejected the Trump administration's expansion of mandatory detention for immigrants within the United States, ruling that they cannot be denied a chance for release on bond. The 2-1 decision by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals deepens a split among federal courts on the administration's immigration detention policy.
Four other appeals courts have also rejected the policy, while the Fifth Circuit and Eighth Circuit have sided with the Trump administration. This growing disagreement among the circuits makes it more likely that the U.S. Supreme Court will eventually review the issue. The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Under prior administrations, most noncitizens without criminal records arrested inside the U.S. were permitted to seek bond hearings while their immigration cases were processed. Mandatory detention was typically reserved for individuals apprehended at the border. However, immigration officials issued guidance last July to expand mandatory detention to immigrants in the U.S. interior as part of a broader deportation effort, leading to numerous federal lawsuits from immigrants seeking release.
Writing for the majority, 9th U.S. Circuit Judge Daniel Bress, a Trump appointee, rejected the administration's argument that a 1996 immigration law amendment allowed for mandatory detention beyond the border. Bress stated that the historical understanding of the statute was the more appropriate interpretation. He was joined by Judge M. Margaret McKeown, appointed by President Bill Clinton. Dissenting, Judge Carlos Bea, appointed by President George W. Bush, argued that the text and purpose of the 1996 amendment supported the administration's reading.