A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that the Trump administration cannot deny immigrants detained inside the United States a chance for release on bond, with a 2-1 decision by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals featuring a judge appointed by President Donald Trump in the majority. This decision affects Nevada and nine other western states covered by the Ninth Circuit and deepens a growing conflict among federal appellate courts over the government’s detention policy.
What changed
The administration last month asked the high court to consider the issue. The ruling deepened a split between federal appeals courts over the administration’s mandatory detention policy, with four other appeals courts also rejecting it, while the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans and Eighth Circuit in St. Louis have sided with the Trump administration.
Writing for the majority, 9th U.S. Circuit Judge Daniel Bress rejected the administration’s argument that Congress changed immigration law in 1996 to allow mandatory detention beyond the border, writing: “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.”
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.
Why it matters
Immigration officials issued guidance expanding mandatory detention to immigrants in the U.S. interior last July as part of the administration’s mass deportation campaign, which prompted a deluge of federal lawsuits by immigrants seeking release from custody. This Ninth Circuit ruling means that in the nine western states and Pacific jurisdictions it covers—including Nevada—immigration attorneys can now cite this precedent to argue for bond hearings on behalf of detained clients.
The practical effect: detained immigrants who entered the U.S. without inspection are no longer subject to automatic, indefinite detention in your circuit. They have a due-process right to request a custody redetermination (bond) hearing. Some federal judges who ordered bond hearings had previously blasted the administration for repeatedly violating their orders.
The deepening circuit split means litigation will likely proceed to the Supreme Court. The expanding circuit split increases the likelihood that the U.S. Supreme Court will eventually take up the issue, and the administration last month asked the high court to consider it. Practitioners should track that SCOTUS petition closely; any reversal could alter detention law again.
Way forward
-
Advise detained clients in Ninth Circuit jurisdictions that they now have a recognized right to request a custody redetermination hearing, regardless of when they entered the U.S., and cite Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock (9th Cir. July 30, 2026) to the immigration judge or ICE counsel.
-
File bond motions and habeas petitions for clients currently held under the mandatory detention policy; use this ruling to argue that continued detention without a hearing violates due process and the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, as the court did.
-
Monitor the Supreme Court docket. The administration has already petitioned SCOTUS for review. If the Court accepts the case, the landscape could shift again. Subscribe to SCOTUSblog or the court’s opinion release list to track the mandatory detention case.
-
Document compliance failures by ICE/DHS. If the government ignores this ruling or delays scheduling bond hearings, preserve that evidence for removal-of-cause motions, appeals, or potential damages claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Disclaimer
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Fola Editorial is a software company, not a law firm. You should consult a licensed immigration attorney regarding your specific situation. The views and analysis presented are based on public reporting of the court’s ruling and may not capture all factual or legal nuances. Immigration policy can change without notice; always verify the current status of governing law against primary sources, including the court opinion and agency guidance, before advising a client.