An appeals court ruled against ICE’s mandatory detention policy, paving the way for a likely Supreme Court showdown
The ruling from the New York-based Second Circuit Court of Appeals is the first in the nation to reject the Trump administration's position that nearly all undocumented immigrants must be detained.
A federal appeals court on Tuesday ruled against the policy of President Donald Trump’s administration to mandate detention for nearly all undocumented immigrants encountered by federal authorities, a decision that will almost certainly send the controversial matter to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The ruling from the New York-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is not binding on courts in the Philadelphia area. But it is the first ruling nationwide that aligns with thousands of district court judges here and elsewhere who have released immigrants from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention in recent months, finding that the administration’s policy to universally hold people in custody without bond is unlawful.
The policy, enacted last year, upended decades of government practice that allowed otherwise law-abiding undocumented immigrants to at least receive a bond hearing to determine if they could remain in the community while their cases advanced through immigration court.
Thousands of lawsuits were subsequently filed nationwide challenging both individual detention decisions and the policy at large. And earlier this year, two other appeals courts — the New Orleans-based Fifth Circuit and the St. Louis-based Eighth Circuit — upheld the policy in those jurisdictions, ruling that the directive did not violate the law.
Tuesday’s ruling in New York created what is known as a circuit split, which can often compel the Supreme Court to intervene and weigh in on an issue before releasing a final decision that would be binding on all jurisdictions across the country.
The circuit split could deepen further next month, as the Philadelphia-based Third Circuit — which encompasses the district courts of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and the U.S. Virgin Islands — is set to hear arguments on the issue on May 11. It could release its own ruling before the case reaches the high court.
In the Second Circuit’s opinion, a panel of three judges ruled unanimously that the administration’s mandatory detention policy violates the law because it fails to differentiate between undocumented immigrants who had just crossed the border and those who have been here for years.
The “unambiguous language” of immigration law stands in contrast to the government’s position that all immigrants should be detained, wrote Circuit Judge Joseph Bianco, a Trump appointee. Bianco noted that over 370 federal judges across the country have also rejected the government’s position.
Even if the government’s interpretation of the law were plausible, Bianco wrote, its policy would create significant constitutional concerns around “what would be the broadest mass detention-without-bond mandate in our Nation’s history for millions of noncitizens.”
The ruling echoes the position taken by nearly every district judge in Philadelphia’s federal court, including those nominated by Trump. Judges here in recent months have almost unanimously rejected mandatory detention, and at times have used unusually pointed language to express frustration with the administration’s continued insistence on employing it.
Chief Judge Wendy Beetlestone wrote at one point: “The law is piled sky high against the government’s position.”
The Third Circuit case that judges will hear next month involves a Brazilian national who was detained at Philadelphia International Airport in January after having lived in the United States for over a decade and a Venezuelan national ICE picked up outside his Philadelphia-area home in February about three years after having entered the country.
District judges ordered ICE to release both men, and the federal government appealed.
The Third Circuit case has drawn interest from immigration advocates and scholars, who submitted filings urging the judges to reject the administration’s argument.
A brief on behalf of Democratic attorneys general from 20 states — including New Jersey and Delaware — calls mandatory detention “unlawful” and “immensely harmful.”
