Appeals Courts Reject ICE Mandatory Detention Policy

Key facts

• Several U.S. appeals courts have rejected the Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) interpretation of a 1996 immigration law.
• The policy mandated detention without bond for individuals deemed "applicants for admission" while seeking entry into the U.S.
• This interpretation, adopted last year, applied to individuals who had resided in the U.S. for decades.
• The 1st Circuit, along with other circuit courts, found this interpretation contradicted 30 years of consistent practice across five presidential administrations.
• A Trump-appointed judge dissented, arguing the administration's view was a valid interpretation of complex immigration laws.
• The Supreme Court is anticipated to take up the case this fall to resolve the legal dispute.

Multiple U.S. appeals courts have increasingly rejected the Trump administration's interpretation of a 1996 immigration statute that mandates detention without bond for individuals seeking admission to the country. Initially, the 5th and 8th Circuit Courts supported the administration's stance. However, a growing number of circuit courts, including the 1st Circuit, have ruled against ICE's position, finding it inconsistent with decades of prior practice across five presidential administrations.

At the core of the dispute is the application of a 1996 law requiring detention for "applicants for admission" while they are "seeking admission." For years, this was applied to those newly crossing the border. Last year, ICE expanded this to include individuals targeted for deportation who had resided in the U.S. for extended periods, a move supported by the Board of Immigration Appeals. The 1st Circuit, in a majority opinion written by Judge Lara Montecalvo, concluded that this interpretation overlooked established practice and that Congress would likely not have allowed such a significant shift without clearer intent. Judge Joshua Dunlap, a Trump appointee, dissented, arguing the administration's view was a reasonable interpretation of the law. The issue is now poised for resolution by the Supreme Court this fall.