Administration Loses Appeal on Detention for Immigrants

Circuits have split on the matter, which could mean Supreme Court will step in
By Newser Editors and Wire Services
Posted Jul 30, 2026 2:35 PM CDT
Appeals Court Rejects Denying Bond Hearing for Immigrants
A group of undocumented migrants is deported by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents across the McAllen-Hidalgo-Reynosa International Bridge in McAllen, Texas, March 13, 2026.   (AP Photo/Felix Marquez, File)

The Trump administration cannot deny immigrants detained in the US a chance for release on bond, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday. The 2-1 decision by the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, with a judge appointed by President Trump in the majority, deepened a split between federal appeals courts over the administration's mandatory detention policy. Four other appeals courts have also rejected it, the AP reports, 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 US Supreme Court will eventually take up the issue. Under in previous administrations, most noncitizens without a criminal record who were arrested in the US were allowed to seek a bond hearing while their immigration cases were pending. Mandatory detention was generally reserved for people arrested at the border. Last July, immigration officials issued guidance expanding mandatory detention to immigrants in the US interior. The move—part of the administration's mass deportation campaign—prompted a deluge of federal lawsuits by immigrants seeking release from custody.

Some federal judges who ordered bond hearings blasted the administration for repeatedly violating their orders. 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. Writing for the majority in Thursday's ruling, 9th US Circuit Judge Daniel Bress rejected that argument. "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," Bress, a Trump appointee, wrote.

Read These Next
Get the news faster.
Tap to install our app.
X
Install the Newser News app
in two easy steps:
1. Tap in your navigation bar.
2. Tap to Add to Home Screen.

X
More News: Health | World | Business | Tech | Sports