Federal Appeals Court Blocks Trump Administration’s Mandatory Detention Policy
A significant ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that the Trump administration cannot prevent detained immigrants within the United States from seeking release on bond. The decision was made in a 2-1 vote, with a judge appointed by President Donald Trump among the majority.
This recent ruling further intensifies the divide among federal appeals courts regarding the administration’s mandatory detention policy. While four other appeals courts have similarly rejected the policy, both the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans and the Eighth Circuit in St. Louis have ruled in favor of the Trump administration.
Given the growing disagreement among the circuits, there is an increasing possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court may eventually address the issue. Last month, the administration formally requested the high court to review the matter.
In response to the 9th Circuit’s ruling, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security expressed strong disagreement, stating it remains confident in its legal stance on mandatory detention. “President Donald Trump and Secretary Mullin are now enforcing the law as it was actually written to keep America safe,” the department declared.
Historically, most noncitizens without criminal records detained within the U.S. were granted the opportunity for a bond hearing while their immigration cases were being processed. However, mandatory detention was primarily applied to those apprehended at the border. In a shift last July, immigration officials expanded mandatory detention to include immigrants detained within the U.S. interior, sparking a wave of federal lawsuits from immigrants seeking release.
Federal judges who have ordered bond hearings have criticized the administration for repeatedly defying their directives. The Trump administration contends that a 1996 change in immigration law by Congress permits mandatory detention beyond the border, a provision they claim previous administrations did not enforce.
In Thursday’s decision, Judge Daniel Bress of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court, appointed by Trump, refuted this argument. “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,” Bress stated. He was joined in the majority by Judge M. Margaret McKeown, appointed by President Bill Clinton. Dissenting was Judge Carlos Bea, a George W. Bush appointee, who argued that the 1996 amendment supports the Trump administration’s interpretation.
