Federal Appeals Court Blocks Trump Administration’s Expanded Mandatory Detention Policy for Migrants

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco issued a 2-1 decision Thursday rejecting the Trump administration’s policy that would bar detained migrants from securing bond hearings. The ruling represents a significant legal setback for the government’s approach to immigration enforcement and follows similar decisions from four other federal appeals courts challenging the same directive.

The administration’s mandatory detention expansion, which extends to undocumented immigrants arrested within U.S. borders, contradicts decades of practice where such individuals typically received bond hearing opportunities. The Department of Homeland Security stated it “strongly disagrees” with the ruling and maintains confidence in defending its legal position on the matter.

Judge Daniel Bress, a Trump appointee, authored the majority opinion alongside Judge M. Margaret McKeown, appointed by President Bill Clinton. Bress determined that historical interpretations of the relevant statutes support allowing bond hearings rather than blanket detention policies, despite acknowledging complexities in the statutory language.

The administration contends Congress altered immigration law in 1996 to permit mandatory detention beyond the border and that prior administrations failed to enforce these provisions. However, the appeals panel rejected this reasoning, with dissenting Judge Carlos Bea, a George W. Bush appointee, arguing the 1996 amendment supported the government’s interpretation.

The deepening disagreement across federal circuits increases the likelihood the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately address the question, particularly given the administration’s petition filed last month requesting high court review.