A federal appeals court delivered a significant blow to the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement strategy Thursday, ruling that immigrants detained inside the United States must receive access to bond hearings—a decision that deepens a growing split among federal courts nationwide.

Circuit Courts Divided on Mandatory Detention

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 2-1 decision blocking the administration’s attempt to deny bond hearings for noncitizens arrested within U.S. borders. Judge Daniel Bress, appointed by President Trump, wrote the majority opinion rejecting the administration’s legal interpretation. He was joined by Judge M. Margaret McKeown in concluding that historical understanding of immigration statutes does not support mandatory detention beyond border arrests. Judge Carlos Bea dissented, arguing congressional amendments from 1996 support the administration’s position.

The ruling marks the fifth appeals court to reject the Trump administration’s mandatory detention expansion. However, the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans and Eighth Circuit in St. Louis have sided with the administration, creating a circuit split that increases the likelihood of Supreme Court intervention. The administration requested high court review last month.

Sharp Policy Shift From Previous Administrations

The Trump administration fundamentally changed decades of immigration enforcement practice. Under previous administrations, most noncitizens without criminal records who were arrested inside the United States could seek bond hearings while their immigration cases progressed through the system. Mandatory detention without bond was typically reserved for individuals apprehended at the border. The Trump administration argues that Congress authorized broader mandatory detention in 1996 amendments, but previous administrations simply chose not to enforce that provision.

The Department of Homeland Security issued a statement strongly disagreeing with the Ninth Circuit panel, expressing confidence in its legal position. The statement emphasized that President Trump and the Secretary are enforcing immigration law as written to protect American safety. Some federal judges have criticized the administration for repeatedly violating court orders requiring bond hearings for detained immigrants.

Constitutional Authority at Stake

The legal battle centers on competing interpretations of statutory language and congressional intent. The administration maintains that 1996 immigration reforms granted authority for mandatory detention of noncitizens arrested anywhere in the country. Critics argue this reading conflicts with historical practice and threatens due process protections. With multiple circuit courts reaching opposite conclusions, the Supreme Court will likely provide the final word on whether the executive branch possesses this expanded detention authority or whether immigrants retain access to bond hearings regardless of where they are apprehended.