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.
What changed
Writing for the majority in Thursday’s ruling, 9th U.S. Circuit Judge Daniel Bress, a Trump appointee, rejected the administration’s argument that the administration’s mandatory detention policy was lawful. Bress wrote that “the historical understanding of the statute is the better one.” He was joined by Judge M. Margaret McKeown, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton.
The Trump administration had argued that Congress changed immigration law in 1996 to allow mandatory detention beyond the border, but previous administrations didn’t enforce that provision. Judge Bress’s majority opinion rejected that reading, holding instead that immigrants already living in the United States who are detained during removal proceedings are entitled to a hearing where a court determines whether they may be released on bond pending their cases.
Why it matters
This ruling expands the rights of detained immigrants nationwide within the 9th Circuit’s jurisdiction—which covers California, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Arizona, Hawaii, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Any immigrant detained inside the U.S. in these states can now demand a bond hearing where the government must prove flight risk or danger to the community, rather than face automatic detention without a hearing.
Four other appeals courts have also rejected the mandatory detention policy, 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. This means practitioners in circuits that have already ruled against the policy can cite the 9th Circuit’s reasoning to clients, and the legal landscape is now genuinely uncertain pending Supreme Court review.
The fact that a Trump-appointed judge joined the rejection of the policy is also tactically significant—it undercuts arguments that the ruling reflects mere “activist” or ideologically driven judging.
Way forward
-
For practitioners in the 9th Circuit: Immediately advise detained clients that they have a right to a bond hearing under this ruling. File habeas corpus petitions or motions in the immigration court or district court asserting bond-hearing rights.
-
For practitioners in other circuits: Research your circuit’s ruling on this issue. If your circuit has ruled against the policy (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th Circuits), cite the 9th Circuit’s reasoning in bond-hearing motions and habeas petitions. If your circuit has sided with the government (5th, 8th Circuits), prepare for a likely Supreme Court petition.
-
Track the Supreme Court docket: The administration has already asked the Supreme Court to weigh in. Monitor https://www.supremecourt.gov/ for any grant of certiorari, which could reset the law nationwide.
-
Document conditions and duration of detention: Begin collecting evidence about your client’s detention conditions, length of detention without a hearing, and any evidence of rehabilitation or community ties—these will be relevant at any bond hearing and critical if the Supreme Court reviews the case.
Disclaimer
This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Articles.folaform.com is maintained by a software company, not a law firm. Immigration law is complex and fact-specific; you must consult a licensed immigration attorney in your jurisdiction to discuss your situation and options. The ruling summarized here applies only in the 9th Circuit unless and until it is affirmed, reversed, or clarified by a higher court or the Supreme Court. Policies and court rulings can change without notice; always verify the latest case law and agency guidance against the primary sources linked in this article before relying on them in practice.