The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Trump administration cannot deny detained migrants the opportunity for bond release, challenging its expanded mandatory detention policy.
A federal appeals court has ruled that the Trump administration cannot deny migrants detained within the United States the opportunity to seek release on bond. This decision, delivered by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, was made in a 2-1 vote on Thursday.
The ruling directly opposes the administration’s expanded mandatory detention policy, which was implemented as part of its broader mass deportation strategy. This decision adds to a growing circuit split, as four other appeals courts have also rejected similar policies, while the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans and the Eighth Circuit in St. Louis have sided with the federal government.
The increasing divergence among circuit courts raises the likelihood that the U.S. Supreme Court may eventually take up the case, especially since the administration requested the high court’s consideration last month.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) expressed strong disagreement with the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, asserting confidence in its legal stance regarding mandatory detention. In a statement, the department emphasized, “President Donald Trump and Secretary Mullin are now enforcing the law as it was actually written to keep America safe.”
Historically, under previous administrations, most undocumented immigrants without a criminal record who were arrested within the U.S. were permitted to seek a bond hearing while their immigration cases were pending. Mandatory detention was generally reserved for individuals apprehended at the border.
However, last year, the Trump administration issued guidance that expanded mandatory detention to include undocumented immigrants already inside the country. This policy shift was part of the president’s mass deportation plan and has led to numerous lawsuits from immigrants seeking release from custody.
Some federal judges who mandated bond hearings have criticized the administration for allegedly ignoring their orders. The administration has defended its actions by citing a 1996 change in immigration law that it claims allows for mandatory detention beyond the border, arguing that previous administrations failed to enforce this provision.
In the majority opinion, Ninth Circuit Judge Daniel Bress, appointed by President Trump, rejected the administration’s argument. He stated, “Although no reading of the complicated and interrelated textual provisions at issue here is without some shortcomings, the historical understanding of the statute is the better one.”
Judge Bress was joined in the majority by Judge M. Margaret McKeown, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton. In dissent, Judge Carlos Bea, appointed by President George W. Bush, argued that the amendment Congress passed 30 years ago supports the administration’s position.
This ruling marks a significant moment in the ongoing legal battles surrounding immigration policy in the United States, as the courts continue to grapple with the implications of the Trump administration’s approach to immigration enforcement.
According to The Associated Press, the outcome of this case may have lasting effects on how immigration law is interpreted and enforced in the future.