Appeals court rejects the Trump administration’s expansion of mandatory detention for immigrants
Jul 30, 2026, 11:25 AM | Updated: 11:48 am
FILE - A sign marks the entrance to a series of hardened tents at the Camp East Montana immigrant detention center in the desert at a U.S. Army base on the outskirts of El Paso, Texas, Feb. 13, 2026. (AP Photo/Morgan Lee, File)
Credit: AP Photo/Morgan Lee
(AP Photo/Morgan Lee, File)
The Trump administration cannot deny immigrants detained inside the United States a chance for release on bond, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.
The 2-1 decision by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, with a judge appointed by President Donald Trump in the majority, deepened a split between federal appeals courts over the administration’s mandatory detention policy.
Four other appeals courts have also rejected it, while the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans and Eighth Circuit in St. Louis have sided with the Trump administration.
The expanding circuit split increases the likelihood that the U.S. Supreme Court will eventually take up the issue.
An email to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for comment was not immediately returned.
Under previous administrations, most noncitizens without a criminal record who were arrested inside the U.S. were allowed to seek a bond hearing while their immigration cases were pending. Mandatory detention was generally reserved for people arrested at the border.
Last July, immigration officials issued guidance expanding mandatory detention to immigrants in the U.S. interior. The move — part of the administration’s mass deportation campaign — prompted a deluge of federal lawsuits by immigrants seeking release from custody.
Some federal judges who ordered bond hearings blasted the administration for repeatedly violating their orders.
The Trump administration has argued that Congress changed immigration law in 1996 to allow mandatory detention beyond the border, but previous administrations didn’t enforce that provision.
Writing for the majority in Thursday’s ruling, 9th U.S. Circuit Judge Daniel Bress rejected that 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, a Trump appointee, wrote.
He was joined by Judge M. Margaret McKeown, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton.
Judge Carlos Bea, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, dissented, saying the text and purpose of an amendment Congress approved in 1996 support the Trump administration’s reading.
