A US federal appeals court has ruled that the Trump administration cannot prevent immigrants detained within the United States from seeking release on bond while their immigration cases are pending.
In a 2-1 decision delivered on Thursday, the San Francisco-based Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the administration’s policy of mandatory detention. The majority included Judge Daniel Bress, who was appointed by President Donald Trump.
The ruling further widens a divide among federal appeals courts over the legality of the administration’s immigration detention policy. While four other appeals courts have also rejected the government’s position, the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans and the Eighth Circuit in St. Louis have upheld it.
The growing disagreement among the courts increases the likelihood that the Supreme Court of the United States will ultimately decide the issue. The Trump administration had already asked the nation’s highest court last month to review the matter.
Responding to the ruling, the US Department of Homeland Security said it disagreed with the court’s decision.
“We strongly disagree with the Ninth Circuit panel and is confident in its legal position regarding mandatory detention.
“President Donald Trump and Secretary Mullin are now enforcing the law as it was actually written to keep America safe,” the department said.
Previous US administrations generally allowed non-citizens without criminal records who were arrested inside the country to request bond hearings while awaiting decisions on their immigration cases. Mandatory detention was largely limited to migrants apprehended at the border.
However, in July last year, immigration authorities expanded the policy to cover immigrants arrested within the US, a move that formed part of the administration’s wider deportation campaign and triggered numerous legal challenges from detainees seeking release.
Several federal judges who ordered bond hearings also criticised the administration for repeatedly failing to comply with court directives.
The Trump administration argued that changes to US immigration law made by Congress in 1996 authorised mandatory detention beyond border arrests, even though previous administrations had not interpreted or enforced the law in that manner.
Writing for the majority, Judge Daniel Bress rejected that interpretation.
“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 wrote.
Judge M. Margaret McKeown, appointed by former President Bill Clinton, joined the majority opinion.
Judge Carlos Bea, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, dissented, arguing that both the wording and purpose of the 1996 immigration law supported the Trump administration’s position.
