A US federal appeals court has dealt another blow to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), rejecting the agency’s attempt to expand mandatory detention to immigrants who have lived in the United States for years.
The ruling, issued Friday by the Philadelphia-based 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, marks the eighth consecutive federal appeals court decision to reject ICE’s interpretation of immigration detention laws.
In a divided ruling, the court found that ICE had stretched the meaning of a decades-old statute that was generally designed to require detention for people who had recently entered the country.
The court also ruled that immigrants detained by ICE who have established significant ties to the United States have a constitutional right to appear before a judge for a bond hearing.
The legal dispute is increasingly likely to reach the US Supreme Court. While eight appeals courts have rejected the administration’s position, two others have upheld it. The Justice Department and the American Civil Liberties Union have already asked the Supreme Court to consider the issue during its next term, which begins in October.
Under ICE’s expanded interpretation, immigrants who have lived in the US for several years could still be classified as people “seeking admission” to the country. That classification would make them subject to mandatory detention without the opportunity to seek release on bond.
The policy has raised concerns because it could affect millions of immigrants, including people with US citizen spouses and children. Many of those targeted have also lived in the country for years and have no criminal records.
The new approach has triggered a surge in emergency legal challenges from immigrants detained under the policy. A POLITICO analysis found that judges have rejected ICE’s argument in more than 90 per cent of over 13,000 cases challenging the policy.
The consequences have been significant, with tens of thousands of people reportedly facing lengthy detention before courts determined that their detention was unlawful.
In Friday’s ruling, the 3rd Circuit majority, comprising Obama appointee Patty Shwartz and Clinton appointee Theodore McKee, said the immigration reforms passed by Congress in 1996 did not envision mandatory detention being applied to such a broad group of long-term US residents.
The judges also noted that no previous administration had interpreted the law in such an expansive manner.
However, Trump-appointed Judge Jennifer Mascott dissented, arguing that the majority’s interpretation could produce an inconsistent outcome.
Mascott contended that people who voluntarily appeared for inspection at the US border could face mandatory detention, while those who avoided detection and entered the country illegally could receive bond hearings.
Most federal courts that have examined the issue, however, have rejected that reasoning.
They have indicated that Congress may have intended to distinguish between recent entrants and immigrants who have lived in the US for extended periods, established families and become part of their communities.
Courts have also pointed to the fact that previous administrations, including Donald Trump’s first administration, did not claim that the law imposed such sweeping mandatory detention requirements.
The Supreme Court has likewise previously indicated that bond hearings are generally available to immigrants residing inside the United States.
With Friday’s decision, only one federal appeals court — the 4th Circuit in Richmond — has yet to rule on the dispute.
