Trump Dealt Another Immigration Blow
A federal appeals court delivered a significant setback to President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda on Thursday, ruling that many immigrants arrested inside the United States must still have the opportunity to ask a judge for release on bond while their immigration cases move forward.
The decision marks another chapter in the ongoing legal battle over the Trump administration’s tougher immigration enforcement policies and could ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
In a 2-1 ruling, the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the administration cannot automatically deny bond hearings to immigrants detained within the country’s interior.
The decision is particularly noteworthy because one of the judges who sided against the administration, Judge Daniel Bress, was appointed by President Trump. He was joined by Judge M. Margaret McKeown, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton.
The ruling further widens a growing split among federal appeals courts.
While the 9th Circuit and four other federal appeals courts have rejected the administration’s interpretation of immigration law, the 5th Circuit in New Orleans and the 8th Circuit in St. Louis have ruled in favor of the Trump administration’s position.
Because federal courts are now divided on the issue, legal experts believe the dispute is increasingly likely to be settled by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Trump administration has already asked the nation’s highest court to review the case.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) quickly criticized Thursday’s ruling, saying it remains confident that federal law supports the administration’s approach.
In a statement, DHS said it “strongly disagrees” with the Ninth Circuit’s decision and argued that President Trump and his administration are enforcing immigration laws as Congress intended to help protect the country and strengthen public safety.
Before the policy change, immigrants arrested inside the United States—particularly those without serious criminal records—were generally allowed to request a bond hearing while awaiting the outcome of their immigration proceedings.
Mandatory detention was typically reserved for individuals apprehended at or near the southern border.
That changed last summer when immigration officials expanded the use of mandatory detention to cover many immigrants arrested throughout the interior of the country. The policy became a major part of the Trump administration’s broader effort to increase immigration enforcement and accelerate deportations.
The expanded policy quickly sparked dozens of lawsuits from detained immigrants seeking bond hearings and release while their cases remained pending.
Several federal judges have also accused immigration officials of failing to fully comply with court orders requiring bond hearings in individual cases, adding to the legal controversy surrounding the policy.
The Trump administration has maintained that Congress gave the federal government broader detention authority when it revised immigration law in 1996, arguing that previous administrations simply chose not to fully enforce those provisions.
Writing for the majority, Judge Daniel Bress acknowledged that the immigration statutes are complex but concluded that the long-standing historical interpretation of the law provides the stronger legal foundation.
Judge Carlos Bea, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush, disagreed. In a sharply worded dissent, he argued that both the text and the purpose of the 1996 immigration law support the administration’s authority to require mandatory detention for certain immigrants arrested inside the United States.
The latest ruling does not end the legal fight. Instead, it raises the stakes as conflicting federal court decisions continue to emerge across the country.
With multiple appeals courts now reaching opposite conclusions, the Supreme Court appears increasingly likely to decide whether the Trump administration can continue enforcing its expanded mandatory detention policy nationwide. That decision could have lasting consequences for immigration enforcement, bond hearings, and future federal immigration policy.
