Appeals court rejects the Trump administration’s expansion of mandatory detention for immigrants


The Trump administration cannot deny immigrants detained inside the United States a chance for release on bond, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.

The 2-1 decision by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, with a judge appointed by President Donald Trump in the majority, deepened a split between federal appeals courts over the administration’s mandatory detention policy.

Four other appeals courts have also rejected it, while the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans and Eighth Circuit in St. Louis have sided with the Trump administration.

The expanding circuit split increases the likelihood that the U.S. Supreme Court will eventually take up the 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.

Sudhin Thanawala, The Associated Press



Source link

  • Related Posts

    Democratic candidates grapple with past stances on defunding the police ahead of key midterm races

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Just months before the midterm elections, Democrats hope to convince voters that lawlessness under President Donald Trump’s administration is the biggest threat to their rights and pocketbooks.…

    Progressive-left outlets report on Ontario wildfires, media coverage of climate change

    As per the editors’ note affixed to his most recent dispatches, Ricochet correspondent Jon Thompson “has been working around the clock for the past week to collect and disseminate information…

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    You Missed

    China’s factory activity unexpectedly slips into contraction in July

    China’s factory activity unexpectedly slips into contraction in July

    Today’s NYT Mini Crossword Answers for Friday, July 31

    Today’s NYT Mini Crossword Answers for Friday, July 31

    Elden Ring Movie Officially Wraps Filming

    Elden Ring Movie Officially Wraps Filming

    The Best Under-$385 Nordstrom Anniversary Sale Shoe Deals

    The Best Under-$385 Nordstrom Anniversary Sale Shoe Deals

    10 Climbers, Including Nims Purja, Missing After Avalanche on Broad Peak in Pakistan

    Democratic candidates grapple with past stances on defunding the police ahead of key midterm races

    Democratic candidates grapple with past stances on defunding the police ahead of key midterm races