Ninth and Seventh Circuits Rule Against Trump Administration's Mandatory Immigrant Detention Policy
The Facts
- On Thursday, the 9th Circuit and the 7th Circuit each issued 2-1 rulings against the administration's policy of denying bond hearings to immigrants detained inside the United States.
- The 9th Circuit opinion was written by Judge Daniel Bress, appointed by President Trump, and joined by Judge Margaret McKeown, a Clinton appointee.
- The 7th Circuit majority opinion was written by Judge Joshua Kolar and joined by Judge Candace Jackson-Akiwumi, both Biden appointees; that court covers Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin.
- The dispute turns on whether immigrants who crossed the border years ago remain 'applicants for admission' under 1996 amendments to immigration law, which would subject them to mandatory detention; both courts found the mandatory-detention provision has historically applied to people apprehended at or near the border.
- Six federal appeals courts — the 2nd, 6th, 7th, 9th, 10th and 11th Circuits — have now ruled against the policy, while the 5th Circuit in New Orleans and the 8th Circuit in St. Louis have sided with the administration.
- The widening disagreement among circuits increases the likelihood the Supreme Court will take the case; the administration asked the justices last month to hear it.
- Under previous administrations, most noncitizens without a criminal record who were arrested in the interior of the country were allowed to seek release on bond while their removal cases proceeded.
- The 9th Circuit decision upheld a ruling by Tacoma-based U.S. District Judge Tiffany Cartwright and is expected to give bond hearings to hundreds of people held at the Northwest ICE Processing Center in Tacoma and others across the circuit's western states.
- The 9th Circuit's ruling binds federal district courts across the circuit, which includes California, Arizona, Nevada and Washington, and where large numbers of ICE detainees are held.
Context
What exactly is the detention policy at issue?
In July 2025, ICE issued a memo from acting Director Todd Lyons instructing agents to deny bond to anyone who entered the country without inspection, directing that such immigrants be held 'for the duration of their removal proceedings' unless granted parole Law & Crime. The administration argues the 1996 Immigration and Nationality Act has always required this and that prior administrations simply chose not to enforce it Washington Examiner. The policy triggered a wave of habeas corpus petitions from detainees Law & Crime.
Who is affected by these rulings?
The rulings apply to immigrants who entered the country without authorization and were later arrested in the interior, many of whom have lived in the U.S. for years without a criminal record New Republic,Common Dreams. Attorneys with the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, which brought the class-action suit behind the 9th Circuit case, say hundreds detained in Tacoma and many more across eight other western states should now get bond hearings Spokesman Review,News Tribune. Broadcast coverage noted the underlying legal question could reach millions of people living in the U.S. without legal status KOAA.
What happens next?
Because federal appeals courts are now divided — six against the policy and two in favor — Supreme Court review is considered more likely, and the administration has already asked the justices to take up the question Fox News,NewsMax,Daily Signal. The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the 9th Circuit ruling, according to The Associated Press U.S. News & World R…,TribLIVE.
Where Left and Right agree, and where they split
- Where Left and Right agree
- Both treat the policy as resting on a strained reading of the 1996 amendments — a judgment sealed by a Trump appointee writing the Ninth Circuit opinion and six circuits now agreeing.
- Where Left and Right split
- Hundreds of people held without a chance to ask a judge for release, or an executive claiming detention authority Congress never plainly wrote.
How left and right read it
Two federal appeals courts ruled Thursday against denying bond hearings to immigrants arrested in the interior; the Ninth Circuit's opinion came from a Trump appointee and should let hundreds held in Tacoma at least ask a judge for release. Six circuits now agree. Under earlier administrations most people without criminal records could seek bond — so how many remain locked up, unheard, in the two circuits where this policy still stands?
“The ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, authored by Trump appointee Daniel Bress, is the most significant rejection yet of the Trump administration's unprecedented mass detention policy.” — POLITICO
Judge Daniel Bress, a Trump appointee, wrote the Ninth Circuit's opinion, joined by a Clinton appointee, concluding that the 1996 mandatory-detention provision has historically reached people apprehended at or near the border. Six circuits now agree; two do not. An enforcement policy that earlier administrations declined to attempt, resting on a contested reading of an old amendment, is authority borrowed rather than granted. Congress should write that authority plainly.
“The Trump administration argues the INA has allowed this policy, but that previous presidential administrations declined to enact it.” — Washington Examiner
The receipts — 37 sources
Independent coverage (37)
The news, read by both sides.
The day’s biggest stories in one short brief, built to show both sides and the competing values behind the headlines. Free in your inbox.