An Appeals Court Sets a New Precedent in Immigration Detention Policy
In a landmark decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against the Trump administration’s policy of denying bond to immigrants detained within the United States. This ruling, delivered by a two-to-one majority, challenges the administration’s stance on mandatory detention and is expected to influence future legal discourse on immigration.
The decision highlights a growing divide among federal appeals courts regarding the administration’s detention policy. While this San Francisco-based court, along with four other circuits, has opposed the policy, courts in New Orleans and St. Louis have supported it. This divergence increases the probability that the U.S. Supreme Court will eventually have to address the matter.
Requests for comment from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security were not immediately answered. The policy in question, introduced last July, expanded mandatory detention to include noncitizens inside the U.S. without criminal records, a significant shift from previous administrations where such detentions were largely reserved for border arrests. The policy change led to a wave of federal lawsuits as detained immigrants sought release.
Federal judges have criticized the administration for not adhering to court orders to conduct bond hearings. The administration contends that a 1996 immigration law mandates such detentions, a view the court disagrees with. Judge Daniel Bress, appointed by President Trump, wrote for the majority, stating, “Although no reading of the complicated and interrelated textual provisions at issue here is without some shortcomings, the historical understanding of the statute is the better one.” He was supported by Judge M. Margaret McKeown, appointed by President Clinton. However, Judge Carlos Bea, a Bush appointee, dissented, aligning with the administration’s interpretation of the 1996 amendment.
