A federal appeals court ruled on Thursday that the Trump administration cannot deny immigrants detained in the United States the opportunity for release on bond.
The 2-1 ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco and with a Trump-appointed judge in the majority, further widened the divide among federal appeals courts regarding the administration’s mandatory detention policy.
While four other appeals courts have rejected this policy, the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans and the Eighth Circuit in St. Louis have supported the Trump administration’s stance.
This growing circuit split raises the chances that the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately address the matter. Last month, the administration requested the high court to take it up.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security expressed in a statement that it “strongly disagrees with the Ninth Circuit panel and is confident in its legal stance on mandatory detention.”
“President Donald Trump and Secretary Mullin are now enforcing the law as it was originally written to maintain America’s safety,” the statement added.
Under previous administrations, most noncitizens without a criminal background who were arrested in the U.S. were permitted to request a bond hearing while their immigration cases were ongoing. Mandatory detention was typically reserved for individuals apprehended at the border.
Last July, immigration officials provided guidance that expanded mandatory detention to immigrants within the U.S. interior. This action — part of the administration’s mass deportation initiative — incited a wave of federal lawsuits from immigrants seeking release from custody.
According to recent data from ICE, immigration arrests nationwide in June reached their highest level since President Trump’s second term began, as reported by NBC 7’s Shelby Bremer.
Several federal judges who mandated bond hearings criticized the administration for continuously disregarding their orders.
The Trump administration contended that Congress altered immigration law in 1996 to permit mandatory detention beyond border apprehensions, but prior administrations did not enforce that provision.
In Thursday’s ruling, 9th U.S. Circuit Judge Daniel Bress, writing for the majority, dismissed that argument.
“While no interpretation of the complicated and interrelated textual provisions at play here is flawless, the historical understanding of the statute prevails,” Bress, a Trump appointee, noted.
He was joined by Judge M. Margaret McKeown, appointed by President Bill Clinton.
Judge Carlos Bea, appointed by President George W. Bush, dissented, asserting that both the text and purpose of an amendment approved by Congress in 1996 support the Trump administration’s interpretation.
