A three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 2-1 decision Thursday invalidating the Trump administration’s mandatory detention policy for immigrants in the United States. The ruling determines that noncitizens detained domestically cannot be denied the opportunity for a bond hearing while their immigration cases proceed.
The decision reflects a widening disagreement among federal appeals courts on the issue. Four other circuit courts have previously rejected the administration’s detention policy, while the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans and the Eighth Circuit in St. Louis have upheld it. This split among the circuits historically signals that the U.S. Supreme Court may ultimately decide to hear the case. The administration petitioned the high court last month to review the matter.
The Department of Homeland Security responded with a statement expressing strong disagreement with the ruling and asserting confidence in its legal position. Department officials argued that President Trump and Secretary Mullin are implementing the law as written to enhance national security. Prior to this administration, most noncitizens arrested in the U.S. interior without criminal histories were permitted to request bond hearings during the pendency of their immigration proceedings, with mandatory detention generally applied only at the border.
In July, immigration officials released guidance broadening mandatory detention to apply to noncitizens throughout the U.S. interior as part of the administration’s deportation enforcement initiative. The policy change triggered numerous federal lawsuits from detained immigrants seeking release. Some federal judges have publicly criticized the administration for failing to comply with their orders authorizing bond hearings.
The administration’s legal position holds that Congress modified immigration law in 1996 to authorize mandatory detention beyond border locations, though prior administrations did not enforce that provision. Judge Daniel Bress, a Trump-appointed member of the majority, rejected this interpretation. Judge M. Margaret McKeown, appointed by President Clinton, joined the majority opinion. Judge Carlos Bea, a George W. Bush appointee, dissented, contending that the 1996 amendment’s language and intent support the administration’s reading of the statute.
Article Attribution | Read More at Article Source
Article summary produced by Claude AI