US Appeals Court Rejects Trump Administration's Immigration Detention Policy

A US federal appeals court has rejected the Trump administration's policy of detaining most people apprehended in its immigration crackdown without an opportunity to seek bail.

In a unanimous 3-0 ruling on Tuesday, a panel of judges from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals based in New York said the administration relied on a new but incorrect interpretation of a decades-old immigration law to justify the policy.

Writing for the panel, Federal Judge Joseph F. Bianco, a Trump appointee, warned that the government's reading "would send a seismic shock to our immigration detention system and society," straining already overcrowded facilities, separating families, and disrupting communities.

Trump administration lawyers argued the mandatory detention policy was lawful under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, passed in 1996.

But Bianco said the government had "attempted to muddy" the law's "clear text," arguing that the administration's interpretation "defies the text, context, structure, history, and purpose of the statute" and contradicts "longstanding executive branch practice."

Under the Trump administration policy, the Department of Homeland Security last year took the position that noncitizens who have lived in the U.S., not just those newly arriving at the border, qualify as "applicants for admission" and are subject to mandatory detention. Under federal immigration law, "applicants for admission" to the U.S. are detained while their cases are processed in immigration court and are ineligible for bond hearings.

Homeland Security denied bail hearings to immigrants arrested across the country, including those who had lived in the U.S. for years with no criminal record, according to the Associated Press. This differed from practice under previous U.S. administrations, when most noncitizens without criminal records arrested far from the border had an opportunity to request bail while their cases moved through immigration court. In such cases, bail was often granted to those not deemed a flight risk, and mandatory detention was limited to recent arrivals.

Amy Belsher, director of immigrant rights litigation at the New York Civil Liberties Union, said the appeals court ruling affirmed that "the Trump administration's policy of detaining immigrants without any process was unlawful and can’t stand." "The government cannot lock up millions of non-citizens, many of whom have lived here for decades, without any chance to ask for release. That violates the Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and basic human dignity," Belsher said in a statement.

Conflicting rulings set stage for Supreme Court review

The New York court's decision followed rulings by two other appeals courts in favor of the Trump administration's policy. Acknowledging the conflicting rulings, Judge Bianco said the panel was breaking with them and instead following over 370 lower court judges nationwide who had rejected the administration's interpretation of the law. The split among courts increases the likelihood that the U.S. Supreme Court will intervene.

The latest ruling also upheld an order by a New York judge that led to the release of Brazilian citizen Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha, who was arrested by immigration officials last year while driving to work after living in the U.S. for more than 20 years. "The court was correct to conclude that the Trump administration cannot arbitrarily reinterpret the law as it pleases," said Michael Tan, Barbosa's attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union, in a statement.

The Department of Justice, which defended the mandatory detention policy in court, did not respond to a request for comment.