In a significant legal development, a federal appeals court has ruled against the Trump administration’s policy of detaining immigrants without granting them the possibility of a bond hearing. This decision addresses “serious constitutional questions” and challenges what could have been the largest mass-detention policy without bond in U.S. history.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City delivered a unanimous verdict, potentially setting the stage for an appeal to the Supreme Court. This stands in contrast to previous decisions by panels from the 8th and 5th circuit courts, which upheld the policy initiated by the Trump administration in July. Judge Joseph F. Bianco, writing for the panel along with Judges Alison J. Nathan and Jose A. Cabranes, stated, “Today, although we part ways with two other circuits that have addressed this question, we join the overwhelming majority of federal judges across the Nation to consider it and conclude that the government’s novel interpretation of the immigration statute defies their plain text.”
A New Strategy for Immigrant Detention
The policy shift by the Department of Homeland Security involved denying bond hearings to immigrants, including long-term residents with no criminal background, arrested within U.S. borders. This represents a significant change from previous administrations, where such individuals could request bond hearings while their immigration cases were processed. Typically, bond was granted when individuals were not considered flight risks, with mandatory detention primarily reserved for recent border crossers.
Legal System Overwhelmed by Detention Cases
This policy has led to a surge in federal court cases, with over 30,000 lawsuits filed by detained immigrants during the Trump administration’s deportation efforts. With no option to request bond in immigration court, many have turned to federal courts, pursuing bond through habeas corpus petitions. The administration’s defense of the policy cites the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which streamlined deportation for new arrivals while allowing existing residents to seek bond from an immigration judge. However, in July, Todd Lyons, acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, declared all immigrants facing deportation would be treated as new arrivals.
The three-judge panel concluded that this interpretation conflicts with the 1996 law’s text, purpose, and history, emphasizing Congress’s tiered approach based on residency duration in the country.
Judicial Rejection of Detention Policy
To date, over 370 federal judges, nearly 90%, have rejected the government’s interpretation in habeas cases, noted Judge Bianco, who was appointed by Trump, while Nathan and Cabranes were appointed by Presidents Biden and Clinton, respectively. The case at hand involves Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha, a Brazilian man who entered the U.S. in 2005, applied for asylum in 2016, and was granted work authorization. Despite having no criminal record, owning a home, and running a business in Massachusetts, he was detained in 2025 under an administrative warrant. Judge Bianco highlighted that such detention without a reasonable relation to a legitimate purpose raises significant constitutional concerns.
Potential Appeal by DHS
Amy Belsher, director of Immigrants’ Rights Litigation at the New York Civil Liberties Union, stated, “Today’s ruling rightly affirms that the Trump administration’s policy of detaining immigrants without any process is unlawful and cannot stand.” She emphasized that the policy contradicts the Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and fundamental human decency. Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security referred to a Board of Immigration Appeals decision supporting the mandatory detention policy. It asserted that the enforcement of the law is aligned with its original intent for national safety.
“Regarding decisions from federal courts about mandatory detention, judicial activists have been repeatedly overruled by the Supreme Court on these questions. ICE has the law and the facts on its side and will be vindicated by higher courts,” DHS stated in response.
