Second appeals court rejects Trump’s no-bond immigration detentions
An Atlanta-based appeals court on Wednesday rejected a Trump administration policy of keeping people in immigration proceedings detained without bond, deepening an ongoing split among federal courts over when immigration detainees must be allowed to seek release while their cases are pending.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, concluded that the executive branch’s reading of federal law does not give it “unfettered authority” to detain people without the possibility of bond. The ruling came as other circuits have reached different outcomes on the same policy, with at least some judges signaling that the dispute may require Supreme Court resolution.
The case before the 11th Circuit involved two Mexican men who had been living in the United States without authorization since 2019 and 2015. Both were arrested during traffic stops in Florida in September and placed in deportation proceedings, according to the appeals court’s decision described in the Associated Press report.
The court said the policy at issue was implemented by the Department of Homeland Security and has included denying bond hearings to people held in immigration detention, including those who have lived in the country for years without criminal histories. Under the prior approach that the appeals court described, many noncitizens without a criminal record who were not arrested at the border could seek bond hearings while immigration proceedings continued.
With the new policy, detainees are using habeas corpus petitions in federal court to challenge their detention, creating what the report described as a heavy burden for the courts. The AP report said more than 30,000 lawsuits have been filed by people detained without bond as the Trump administration pursues mass deportations.
The Department of Homeland Security said in an emailed statement that it strongly disagrees with the 11th Circuit panel and is confident in its legal position. The agency said its view aligns with opinions from the Board of Immigration Appeals and with the other two circuit courts that have previously upheld the policy, as well as with the dissent in the 11th Circuit case.
“The 11th Circuit ruling was written by Senior Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus, joined by Circuit Judge Robin Rosenbaum,” and Judge Barbara Lagoa, a Trump appointee, dissented, the report said. The majority said it was “unpersuaded by the Government’s re-interpretation” of a section of federal law that the government argued limits detention without bond for people who are “seeking admission” into the country.
In the majority’s reading, “the language that Congress has chosen to use does not grant to the Executive unfettered authority to detain, without the possibility of bond, every unadmitted alien present in the country.” The decision added that “Congress has instead preserved the longstanding border-interior distinction for the purposes of detention,” describing that distinction as reflected in the statute for more than a hundred years.
Judge Lagoa disagreed, saying there was no dispute that “unlawfully present aliens are applicants for admission pursuant to the deeming provision.” She wrote that while the majority’s argument about how the provision fits arriving aliens might be plausible, “a more comfortable fit does not allow us to read an exception” into the law.
The policy has helped drive the expanding disagreement among circuits. The AP report said the 2nd Circuit reached a similar conclusion in April, and noted that the 11th Circuit ruling further follows earlier decisions that the 8th and 5th circuit courts had upheld the policy after it began in July. This story has also been developing across circuits, with the 11th Circuit now adding to the growing tension with past rulings from other appeals courts as MSI previously reported about the 2nd Circuit’s rejection of the no-bond approach.
The report said the 7th Circuit also issued a split decision on Tuesday, with one judge rejecting the policy, another agreeing with it, and a third declining to weigh in. With the differences among appeals courts widening, the Associated Press report said the U.S. Supreme Court could be called upon to resolve the issue.
At the center of the dispute are competing arguments by immigration officials and detainees about how federal statutes apply to people already in the country versus those arriving at the border. The AP report said Trump administration lawyers have pointed to the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which they said supports mandatory detention for people covered by the government’s interpretation, while detainees contend that other laws allow people already in the country to request bond from an immigration judge.
The report also said Todd Lyons, acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said in July that all people in deportation proceedings would be treated the same as new arrivals—an approach detainees have challenged in federal court as the circuit split has widened.