In a significant setback for the Trump administration's immigration policies, a federal appeals court has ruled that immigrants detained within the United States cannot be denied the opportunity for release on bond.
The 2-1 decision, handed down Thursday by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, is particularly notable as a judge appointed by President Donald Trump joined the majority. This ruling further deepens a growing divide among federal appeals courts regarding the administration's mandatory detention policy.
While four other appeals courts have similarly rejected the policy, the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans and the Eighth Circuit in St. Louis have sided with the Trump administration.
This expanding disagreement across circuits significantly increases the likelihood that the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately address this contentious issue.
An email to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for comment was not immediately returned.
Under previous administrations, most noncitizens without a criminal record who were arrested inside the U.S. were allowed to seek a bond hearing while their immigration cases were pending. Mandatory detention was generally reserved for people arrested at the border.
Last July, immigration officials issued guidance expanding mandatory detention to immigrants in the U.S. interior. The move — part of the administration's mass deportation campaign — prompted a deluge of federal lawsuits by immigrants seeking release from custody.
Some federal judges who ordered bond hearings blasted the administration for repeatedly violating their orders.
The Trump administration has argued that Congress changed immigration law in 1996 to allow mandatory detention beyond the border, but previous administrations didn't enforce that provision.
Writing for the majority in Thursday's ruling, 9th U.S. Circuit Judge Daniel Bress rejected that argument.
“Although no reading of the complicated and interrelated textual provisions at issue here is without some shortcomings, the historical understanding of the statute is the better one,” Bress, a Trump appointee, wrote.
He was joined by Judge M. Margaret McKeown, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton.
Judge Carlos Bea, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, dissented, saying the text and purpose of an amendment Congress approved in 1996 support the Trump administration's reading.
Read MoreTrump desperately wants his MAGA slush fund back. He’s making that crystal clear.
Trump’s ‘Freedom Haulers’ event revealed something unsettling about the president
Trump-branded commemorative passports will become available across the US
TSA is sharing more information with ICE, leading to airport arrests: report
Trump rises above ground at the White House despite ongoing legal challenge
RFK Jr launches new cooking show with sauerkraut-inspired recipes
