On July 30, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled 2-1, with one judge appointed by President Donald Trump joining the majority, that the Trump administration cannot deny bond hearings to immigrants detained within the United States.
The ruling deepens a divide among federal appellate courts over the administration's mandatory detention policy. Four other appeals courts have also rejected the policy, while the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans and the Eighth Circuit in St. Louis have sided with the Trump administration.
The growing split among the courts increases the likelihood that the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately take up the issue. The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to consider the case last month.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security issued a statement saying it "strongly disagrees with the Ninth Circuit panel's ruling and is confident in its legal position on mandatory detention," adding that "President Donald Trump and Secretary (Markwayne) Mullin are enforcing the law as written to keep America safe."
Under previous administrations, most noncitizens without criminal records detained inside the United States were allowed to request bond hearings while their immigration cases were pending. Mandatory detention was generally applied only to those apprehended at the border.
In July last year, immigration officials issued guidance expanding mandatory detention to immigrants in the U.S. interior. The move — part of the Trump administration's mass deportation campaign — sparked a wave of federal lawsuits from immigrants seeking release. Some federal judges ordering bond hearings criticized the administration for repeatedly violating their orders.
The Trump administration argued that Congress amended immigration law in 1996 to allow mandatory detention in the interior, but that previous administrations had declined to enforce that provision.
Writing largely for the July 30 ruling, Ninth Circuit Judge Daniel Bress — a Trump appointee — rejected that argument, writing: "Although no reading of the complex and interrelated statutory provisions at issue here is without flaws, the historical understanding of the statute is the better one."
Bress was joined by Judge M. Margaret McKeown, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton. Judge Carlos Bea, appointed by former President George W. Bush, dissented, arguing that the text and purpose of the 1996 congressional amendment supported the Trump administration's interpretation.
