In a significant legal setback for the federal government's immigration policy, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the United States ruled on Thursday that the Trump administration cannot deny detained immigrants within the country the right to request a bond hearing.
According to Associated Press, the San Francisco-based court reached its decision with a 2-1 vote, highlighting the growing rift among federal appeals courts over whether mandatory detention without judicial review is lawful.
The Ruling and Its Justification
Judge Daniel Bress, appointed by President Donald Trump, authored the majority opinion, which was supported by Judge M. Margaret McKeown, a Bill Clinton appointee. Bress acknowledged the complexity of the legal provisions in question but asserted that historical practice should guide the interpretation:
"While no interpretation of the intricate and interrelated statutory provisions is without flaws, the historical interpretation of the statute is the most accurate."
The court concluded that immigrants arrested within the U.S. fall under the section of the code allowing bond hearings, rather than the mandatory detention provision historically used by the government for individuals attempting to cross the border.
Judge Carlos Bea, appointed by George W. Bush, dissented, arguing that a 1996 congressional amendment supports the Trump administration's interpretation.
The Controversial Policy and Its Origins
The challenged policy originated from a July 2025 memo by Todd M. Lyons, interim director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The memo mandated that all immigrants entering without authorization be treated as subject to mandatory detention, regardless of how long they had been living in the country.
This directive overturned decades of immigration practice, where mandatory detention was reserved for recent border crossers or those with serious criminal records.
The policy prompted a surge of litigation: approximately 30,000 habeas corpus petitions were filed by immigrants seeking release, with over 90% of federal judges ruling against the government's position.
DHS Denounces the Decision, Plans Appeal
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) responded forcefully to the ruling, announcing its intention to continue defending its stance in higher courts. In a statement to Associated Press, the agency expressed firm disagreement with the Ninth Circuit panel and confidence in its legal position regarding mandatory detention.
"President Donald Trump and Secretary Mullin are enforcing the law as originally written to keep America safe," the DHS statement declared.
The government argues that Congress amended immigration law in 1996 to allow for mandatory detention beyond the border and claims that prior administrations failed to enforce this provision.
Federal Circuit Divide and Path to the Supreme Court
The Ninth Circuit's decision deepens the divide among federal courts: the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans and the Eighth Circuit in St. Louis have supported Trump's mandatory detention policy, while the Second, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits have opposed it.
This split virtually guarantees Supreme Court involvement. The government has already requested the Supreme Court's review, and in June, the high court agreed to consider a related case on whether the government can hold immigrants in prolonged detention without bond hearings.
The impact of these policies has been especially harsh on the Cuban community: ICE detentions of Cubans surged 463% from October 2024, with 1,152 Cubans arrested by January 2026, many holding Form I-220A and detained without bond hearing opportunities.
By mid-2026, over 65,000 individuals were in ICE custody, a 9% increase from April of the same year, according to immigration tracking data.
Key Questions on U.S. Immigration Bond Hearings
What did the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decide regarding immigration bond hearings?
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Trump administration cannot deny detained immigrants within the U.S. the opportunity to request a bond hearing.
What was the basis for the court's decision?
The court determined that historical practice should prevail in interpreting the statute, allowing detained immigrants the right to bond hearings rather than being subject to mandatory detention without review.
How has the Department of Homeland Security responded to the ruling?
The Department of Homeland Security strongly disagreed with the ruling and announced plans to appeal, maintaining confidence in their legal stance on mandatory detention.