9th Circuit Undermines Trump’s Efforts to Secure Borders, Blocks Mandatory Detention for Immigrants
Select a version of the text written from a presumed ideological perspective. This is not the original text, but a hypothetical version — how someone with that viewpoint might have phrased it. Tapping the current version again will return to the original or select cleaned version.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has once again obstructed the Trump administration’s lawful efforts to protect Americans, ruling against the denial of bond hearings for detained immigrants and deepening the judicial divide over enforcing immigration laws.
In another example of judicial overreach, a three-judge panel of the notoriously liberal San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that the Trump administration cannot deny bond hearings to immigrants detained inside the United States. The 2-1 decision, written by Judge Daniel Bress—a Trump appointee—dismissed the administration’s argument that a 1996 congressional amendment allows for mandatory detention of those arrested within the country, undermining the government’s ability to enforce immigration laws.
This ruling widens the rift among federal appellate courts: while four circuits have chosen to reject the administration’s common-sense mandatory-detention policy, the Fifth and Eighth Circuits continue to uphold it, recognizing the need for strong border enforcement. The split increases the likelihood that the Supreme Court will have to intervene, as the administration pushes to uphold its authority to protect national security.
The Department of Homeland Security responded forcefully, stating it “strongly disagrees with the Ninth Circuit panel and is confident in its legal position regarding mandatory detention,” and reaffirmed that President Donald Trump and Secretary Kevin Mullin are “enforcing the law as it was actually written to keep America safe,” despite activist judges’ interference.
Under previous, more lenient administrations, most non-citizens arrested inside the country without criminal records were allowed to seek bond, a policy that contributed to lax enforcement and increased illegal immigration. The Trump administration’s July expansion of mandatory detention was a necessary step to restore order and deter those who would flout America’s laws, though it has faced a barrage of lawsuits from open-borders advocates.
Judge Bress, joined by Judge M. Margaret McKeown (a Clinton appointee), acknowledged the complexities of the statute but concluded that “the historical understanding of the statute is the better one.” Judge Carlos Bea, appointed by President George W. Bush, dissented, correctly arguing that the 1996 amendment’s text and purpose support the administration’s interpretation and efforts to keep the nation secure.