The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a significant blow to the Trump administration’s expanded detention policy, ruling that migrants arrested inside the United States cannot be denied bond hearings. The 2-1 decision deepens a nationwide legal split that could force Supreme Court intervention.

Circuit Courts Divided on Detention Authority

Four federal appeals courts have now rejected the administration’s mandatory detention policy for migrants arrested within U.S. borders. However, the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans and Eighth Circuit in St. Louis sided with the federal government, creating conflicting legal standards across different regions. This split prompted the administration to petition the Supreme Court last month, seeking a definitive ruling on the scope of detention authority under immigration law.

Judge Daniel Bress, a Trump appointee, wrote the majority opinion alongside Judge M. Margaret McKeown. Bress acknowledged the complexity of the statutory provisions but concluded that historical interpretation supports allowing bond hearings for migrants detained inside the country. Judge Carlos Bea dissented, arguing that Congress clearly authorized expanded detention through 1996 amendments to immigration law.

Policy Shift From Previous Administrations

The contested policy represents a dramatic departure from decades of practice. Previous administrations typically reserved mandatory detention for individuals apprehended at the border, while allowing those arrested inside the country without criminal records to seek bond hearings during immigration proceedings. Last year, the Trump administration issued new guidance expanding mandatory detention to include migrants already living in the United States as part of the president’s mass deportation initiative.

The Department of Homeland Security strongly rejected the ruling, stating that President Trump and Secretary Mullin are enforcing immigration law as written by Congress. The department maintains that the 1996 legal changes authorize detention beyond border areas, and previous administrations simply failed to implement the law properly. Some federal judges have criticized the administration for allegedly violating court orders requiring bond hearings.

Constitutional Questions at Stake

The legal battle centers on competing interpretations of congressional intent from three decades ago. The administration argues that lawmakers clearly expanded detention authority in 1996 reforms, removing geographic limitations on mandatory custody. Opponents contend that Congress intended to maintain the traditional distinction between border apprehensions and interior enforcement, preserving due process protections for longtime residents facing deportation proceedings. With circuits split and detention affecting thousands of individuals, the Supreme Court faces mounting pressure to resolve the constitutional questions surrounding immigration detention authority and bond hearing rights.