The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled in a 2‑1 decision that the administration cannot deny migrants detained inside the United States a chance to be released on bond under its expanded mandatory detention policy.
The decision joins four other appeals courts that have rejected the policy, while the Fifth and Eighth Circuits have ruled in favor of the federal government, deepening a split among the courts.
The split may prompt the Supreme Court to address the issue, following the administration’s request for the high court to review the case.
The Department of Homeland Security expressed strong disagreement with the ruling and maintained confidence in its legal position on mandatory detention.
Historically, most illegal immigrants without criminal records arrested inside the country were allowed bond hearings while their cases proceeded, with mandatory detention mainly applied at the border.
Last year, the government expanded mandatory detention to include those detained within the United States, a move tied to a mass deportation strategy that led to lawsuits by immigrants seeking release.
Some federal judges had previously ordered bond hearings and criticized the administration for violating those orders.
The administration cites a 1996 congressional change that permits mandatory detention beyond the border and claims earlier administrations failed to enforce it.
Judge Daniel Bress, appointed by a former president, rejected that argument, noting that historical interpretation of the statute better supports the court’s decision.
He was joined by Judge M. Margaret McKeown, while Judge Carlos Bea dissented, asserting that the 30‑year‑old amendment backs the administration’s stance.
