Appeals Court Blow to Trump Sets Up Supreme Court Fight Over Immigrant Detentions

The Trump administration’s policy of detaining illegal immigrants without bond hearings until removal is likely headed to the Supreme Court, as the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Thursday ruled against the administration and added to a maze of divided rulings on the matter.

When circuits split on a matter, the high court usually grants it a final review. This is the fifth federal appeals court to side against President Donald Trump on the policy, while two have sided with him.

The 9th Circuit, with its 2-1 ruling in the case of Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, now joins the 2nd Circuit, the 6th Circuit, the 10th Circuit, and the 11th Circuit in handing Trump a loss. The 5th Circuit and 8th Circuit ruled in his favor, according to Bloomberg Law.

The Trump administration determined last year that millions of illegal immigrants don’t have the right to bond hearings in immigration court regardless of how long they have lived in the United States. The administration interpreted the Immigration and Nationality Act to give the executive branch the authority to implement that policy as part of its mass deportation effort.

On Thursday, Judge Daniel Bress, a Trump appointee, issued the majority ruling and asserted that the policy change is a departure from 30 years of precedent.

The majority joined other circuit courts in determining that the detention statute, a 1996 update to the Immigration and Nationality Act, applies to illegal immigrants seeking entry at the border. However, those arrested inside the U.S. after living in the country fall under a different category, the majority added, and an alien who enters the U.S. illegally but is later arrested can’t automatically be held without bond. 

TRENDING ARTICLES

news

Mamdani Announces City-Run Grocery Stores Will Offer 30% Discount. Critics Say It Will Crush Local Businesses.

Jarrett Stepman

news

Residents Voice Opposition to Proposed Mosque Ahead of City Council Vote

Emily Medeiros

news

10 States Checked Their Voter Rolls With a DHS Database to Find Startling Info

Fred Lucas

“The implication of the government’s position is that Congress in 1996 made a major change to the immigration laws by subjecting millions of unadmitted aliens present in the United States to mandatory detention, but that this change then went unnoticed and unheeded, with the Executive Branch for the next three decades violating Congress’s assertedly unambiguous mandatory detention directive by treating these aliens as subject to release on bond,” the judge wrote.

“We conclude that the text, context, and structure of the INA, considered as a whole, did not direct such a significant, yet overlooked, change in the law,” he added.

The majority joined other courts in determining that the detention statute applies to illegal immigrants seeking entry at the border, but those arrested inside the U.S. after living in the U.S. fall under a different category. So, an alien who entered the United States illegally but was later arrested can’t automatically be held without bond. 

Judge Margaret McKeown, a Bill Clinton appointee, joined the majority. Dissenting was Judge Carlos Bea, a George W. Bush appointee.

“Pervading the majority’s opinion is an underlying demand for congressional clarity to authorize mandatory detention of aliens who entered the country illegally,” Bea wrote in the dissent.

“Under this unbounded standard, a judge can stymie congressional action even when a statute’s plain text would allow for the challenged application; this opens the door to judicial legislation, by allowing a judge to claim any text is just short of the clarity he would require,” he later added.