A federal appeals court delivered a significant setback to the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement strategy, ruling that immigrants detained within the United States retain the right to request release on bond rather than face automatic detention.

Split Decision From Ninth Circuit

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco issued a two-to-one decision on Thursday, with Judge Daniel Bress, a Trump appointee, writing the majority opinion alongside Judge M. Margaret McKeown, appointed by President Bill Clinton. The ruling blocks the administration’s expansion of mandatory detention to immigrants arrested inside American borders, a policy previously limited primarily to individuals apprehended at the border. Judge Carlos Bea, appointed by President George W. Bush, dissented from the majority position.

The Department of Homeland Security immediately pushed back against the decision. The agency released a statement expressing strong disagreement with the panel and confidence in its legal position regarding mandatory detention. The statement emphasized that President Trump and Secretary Markwayne Mullin are enforcing immigration law as written by Congress.

Growing Division Among Federal Courts

This ruling deepens an expanding divide among federal appeals courts nationwide. Four additional circuit courts have rejected the mandatory detention expansion, while the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans and the Eighth Circuit in St. Louis have sided with the administration’s interpretation. This growing split among circuits substantially increases the likelihood that the Supreme Court will ultimately address the issue. The administration already requested high court review last month.

The controversy centers on a 1996 congressional amendment to immigration law. The Trump administration maintains that this legislation authorized mandatory detention beyond border arrests, but previous administrations chose not to enforce this provision. Judge Bress rejected this interpretation, writing that despite the complicated nature of the statutory provisions, the historical understanding of the law provides the better reading.

Policy Background and Legal Challenges

Under previous presidential administrations, most noncitizens without criminal records who were arrested within the United States could seek bond hearings while their immigration cases proceeded through the courts. Last July, immigration officials issued new guidance expanding mandatory detention to immigrants in the interior, part of the administration’s broader mass deportation campaign. The policy change triggered numerous federal lawsuits from detained immigrants seeking release. Several federal judges who ordered bond hearings have sharply criticized the administration for repeatedly violating their court orders. The legal battle represents a fundamental disagreement about the scope of executive authority in immigration enforcement and the rights of individuals detained on American soil.