The Trump administration’s approach to immigration detention without bond faced a fresh setback Tuesday, when a unanimous panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York ruled that the government cannot jail immigrants without providing a path to seek release on bond. Judge Joseph F. Bianco, writing for the panel that included Judges Alison J. Nathan and Jose A. Cabranes, said the case raised “serious constitutional questions” tied to what the court said would be a broad mass detention-without-bond mandate.
The court’s decision came as litigation continues to challenge a shift by U.S. officials that has denied bond hearings to immigrants arrested across the country—including people who have lived in the United States for years without criminal histories. Under the policy described in the ruling, the Department of Homeland Security has treated immigrants targeted for deportation the same way as new arrivals, cutting off an earlier pathway in immigration court for those without criminal records to request bond.
Bianco’s opinion said that, although the 2nd Circuit is “part[ing] ways with two other circuits,” it joined an “overwhelming majority” of federal judges in concluding that the government’s interpretation of the immigration statute “defies their plain text.” The panel added that it found the government’s reading inconsistent with the law’s purpose and history, including Congress’s alleged decision to set up a tiered system for immigration cases based in part on how long a person has been in the country.
The court’s reasoning sets up the next procedural steps because the same legal question has already produced outcomes in other federal appellate circuits. The 2nd Circuit decision was issued in a context where panels on the 8th and 5th circuits had upheld the policy that officials began implementing last July, a divide that can make Supreme Court review more likely. MSI previously reported on that earlier circuit-level approval of the no-bond approach.
The 2nd Circuit case centered on Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha, a man from Brazil who the court described as having entered the United States around 2005 and who applied for asylum in 2016. The opinion said he was granted work authorization while his application was under review, and that he was arrested on an administrative warrant in September 2025 and placed in removal proceedings after an immigration judge found he was subject to mandatory detention.
In its analysis, the court said that mandatory detention for a substantial period for people like Barbosa da Cunha would “raise serious constitutional questions,” especially because the government, the panel said, had failed to explain how the approach would have a “reasonable relation” to a legitimate, non-punitive purpose. The opinion also cited what it described as the statute’s structure and timeline-based tiers for immigration cases.
The ruling also reflects what attorneys described as a growing strain on the courts. The appeal described that judges across the country have faced more than 30,000 lawsuits from immigrants locked up under the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign, including filings seeking bond through habeas corpus petitions after detainees were denied bond hearings in immigration court.
Attorneys for the administration argued that mandatory detention is lawful under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, passed in 1996, which they said streamlined deportation for newly arriving people without permission. The argument described in the 2nd Circuit ruling said that immigrants already in the country were previously allowed to seek bond under another law, but that the approach changed in July when Todd Lyons, acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said all immigrants targeted for deportation would be treated like new arrivals.
After Tuesday’s decision, Amy Belsher, director of Immigrants’ Rights Litigation at the New York Civil Liberties Union, said the ruling “rightly affirms” that the Trump administration’s policy of detaining immigrants without process is unlawful. “The government cannot mandatorily detain millions of noncitizens, many of whom have lived here for decades, without an opportunity to seek release,” Belsher said. “It defies the Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and basic human decency.”
In a statement emailed to The Associated Press, the Department of Homeland Security pointed to a Board of Immigration Appeals ruling that upheld the mandatory detention policy. DHS also said Trump and DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin are now enforcing the policy “as it was actually written to keep America safe,” and that “ICE has the law and the facts on its side and will be vindicated by higher courts.”