Two federal appeals courts issued Trump mass detention policy rulings against the administration on July 30, finding that it could not require many immigrants arrested inside the United States to remain jailed without a chance to seek bond. The Seventh and Ninth Circuits each ruled 2-1, adding immediate protections in their jurisdictions while leaving a national legal fight unresolved.
The cases concern the administration’s attempt to apply mandatory detention without bond to many noncitizens taken into custody in the country’s interior, including people who had lived in the United States for years. The policy did not treat that group differently from people apprehended at or soon after crossing the border.
What do the Seventh and Ninth Circuit rulings mean for bond hearings?
A bond hearing lets a detained person ask an immigration judge to permit release while removal proceedings continue. It is not a release order. The judge decides whether the person can live in the community during the case.
The Ninth Circuit held that people arrested in the interior can seek those hearings under the immigration system at issue. Its majority said Congress’s 1996 changes did not authorize the broader detention regime the government now claimed. Judge Daniel Bress, appointed by President Donald Trump, wrote the opinion and was joined by Judge M. Margaret McKeown, a Clinton appointee. Judge Carlos Bea dissented, arguing that the 1996 amendment’s text and purpose supported the administration’s interpretation, according to Associated Press reporting.
Bress’s majority placed substantial weight on roughly three decades of executive-branch practice that had treated people in the interior as eligible for bond hearings. The underlying Ninth Circuit case involved people held in the Seattle area, and the ruling binds lower courts across the circuit’s western jurisdiction, including California. Politico reported that the region includes a large stretch of the southern border and states holding thousands of ICE detainees.
The Seventh Circuit reached the same result in a separate 2-1 decision. Judge Joshua Kolar wrote for the majority, joined by Judge Candace Jackson-Akiwumi, Politico reported.
A split that still needs a national answer
These decisions do not end immigration detention or establish a nationwide rule. As of July 30, six federal appeals circuits had rejected the administration’s position, while the Fifth and Eighth Circuits had upheld it. Decisions remained pending in three circuits, according to Politico’s reporting.
- Circuits rejecting the policy: Second, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh.
- Circuits backing the administration: Fifth and Eighth.
- Pending circuit decisions: three, as reported July 30.
The Department of Homeland Security said it strongly disagreed with the Ninth Circuit panel and remained confident in its legal position, according to the Associated Press. The Justice Department had appealed a Sixth Circuit loss to the Supreme Court the previous month, while the ACLU separately asked the justices to overturn the Fifth Circuit ruling. The conflicting appellate decisions make Supreme Court review more likely, but the Court had not resolved the issue in the reporting cited here.
Politico reported that, by July 30, more than 460 federal judges had rejected the administration’s approach in over 10,000 cases. It reported that 54 judges had backed the policy in about 1,100 cases. Those counts describe litigation to date, not a final nationwide outcome.
This story draws on original reporting from Techdirt.
