A federal appeals court delivered a significant blow to the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement strategy Thursday, ruling that migrants detained inside the United States cannot be denied the opportunity for release on bond under the expanded mandatory detention policy.

Court Rejects Administration’s Legal Authority

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco issued a 2-1 decision against the administration’s detention expansion. Judge Daniel Bress, appointed by President Trump himself, wrote the majority opinion rejecting the government’s interpretation of immigration law. Bress concluded that despite the complexity of the statutory provisions, the historical understanding of the law supersedes the administration’s current reading. He was joined by Judge M. Margaret McKeown in the majority decision.

Judge Carlos Bea dissented from the ruling, arguing that the 1996 congressional amendment supports the administration’s legal position on mandatory detention authority. The Department of Homeland Security responded with strong disagreement, stating confidence in its legal interpretation and emphasizing that President Trump and Secretary Mullin are enforcing immigration law as written to protect American security.

Growing Circuit Split Points to Supreme Court

The Ninth Circuit decision deepens an emerging split among federal appeals courts nationwide. Four other circuit courts have rejected the administration’s detention policy, while the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans and Eighth Circuit in St. Louis have sided with the federal government. This growing disagreement among appellate courts significantly increases the likelihood that the U.S. Supreme Court will eventually hear the case. The administration already requested Supreme Court review last month.

The policy change represents a dramatic shift from previous administrations. Historically, illegal immigrants without criminal records who were arrested inside the United States could seek bond hearings while their immigration cases proceeded through the courts. Mandatory detention was typically reserved only for those apprehended at the border. Last year, the government issued new guidance expanding mandatory detention to include illegal immigrants already inside the country as part of the president’s mass deportation initiative.

What This Means

The expanded detention policy sparked multiple lawsuits from immigrants seeking release from custody. Some federal judges criticized the administration for repeatedly violating their orders to conduct bond hearings. The administration maintains that Congress changed immigration law in 1996 to permit mandatory detention beyond border apprehensions, and that previous administrations simply failed to enforce this authority properly. With circuit courts now divided on the issue, constitutional questions about detention authority and due process rights will likely reach the nation’s highest court for final resolution.