The Trump administration’s effort to strengthen immigration enforcement through expanded detention authority faces new legal hurdles after two federal appeals courts rejected the policy.
The Ninth Circuit delivered a significant setback to the administration’s immigration detention policy, while the Seventh Circuit issued a separate ruling reaching a similar conclusion that certain immigrants detained inside the United States must be allowed to request bond hearings.
The decisions add to a widening disagreement among federal appeals courts over how immigration detention laws should be interpreted.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has argued that Congress granted federal officials wider authority to hold certain immigrants in custody through changes made to immigration law in 1996.
The Ninth Circuit ruling, written by Trump-appointed Judge Daniel Bress and joined by Clinton-appointed Judge Margaret McKeown, rejected the administration’s argument that the 1996 law requires mandatory detention for immigrants who entered the country without inspection but were later arrested inside the United States.
Bress argued that the administration’s reading would represent a major shift in immigration law that had not been reflected in federal practice for nearly three decades.
“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,” Bress wrote.
The administration’s policy, implemented in 2025, expanded mandatory detention for many immigrants arrested inside the country, including some who had lived in the United States for years.
According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), critics of the policy argued that people should be allowed to request bond hearings while their immigration cases move through the courts.
Supporters of the administration’s approach argue that immigration laws must be enforced consistently and that allowing detained individuals to seek release could make it harder for federal officials to carry out President Trump’s mass deportation agenda.
DHS said it disagreed with the Ninth Circuit ruling and remained confident in its legal position.
“President Donald Trump and Secretary Mullin are now enforcing the law as it was actually written to keep America safe,” the department said, according to KRGV.
Thursday’s decisions add to a growing split among federal appeals courts.
The Ninth and Seventh Circuits join the Second, Sixth, 10th, and 11th Circuits in rejecting the administration’s position, while the Fifth and Eighth Circuits have ruled in favor of the government’s interpretation.
The disagreement among appellate courts could push the dispute toward review by the Supreme Court.
The Justice Department has already asked the high court to review one related case, while opponents of the policy have also sought Supreme Court intervention, Politico reported.
The legal dispute centers on whether the federal government has the authority to require detention without bond hearings for certain immigrants awaiting removal proceedings or whether those individuals must first receive an opportunity to argue for release.
For the Trump administration, the case represents a major test of its ability to expand immigration enforcement nationwide.
For opponents, the lawsuits represent a challenge to what they describe as an unprecedented expansion of executive power.
With federal courts divided and thousands of cases affected, the Supreme Court may ultimately determine the limits of presidential authority over immigration detention policy.
