9th Circuit Court Defends Immigrants’ Rights, Blocks Trump’s Cruel Bond Hearing Denials
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.
A panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has stood up to the Trump administration’s draconian anti-immigrant agenda, ruling that the government cannot strip detained immigrants of their right to bond hearings, further exposing the administration’s disregard for basic due process and human dignity.
In a significant rebuke to the Trump administration’s relentless assault on immigrant rights, a three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that the administration cannot deny bond hearings to immigrants detained within the United States. The 2-1 decision, authored by Judge Daniel Bress—a Trump appointee—rejected the administration’s attempt to exploit a 1996 congressional amendment to justify the inhumane practice of mandatory detention for interior arrests.
This ruling highlights the growing resistance among federal courts to the administration’s punitive immigration policies: four circuits have now rejected mandatory detention, while only the Fifth and Eighth Circuits continue to uphold these harsh measures. The deepening split could force the Supreme Court to address the issue, as the administration desperately seeks to legitimize its cruel tactics.
The Department of Homeland Security, in a tone-deaf statement, insisted it “strongly disagrees with the Ninth Circuit panel and is confident in its legal position regarding mandatory detention,” parroting President Donald Trump and Secretary Kevin Mullin’s tired claim that they are “enforcing the law as it was actually written to keep America safe”—a thinly veiled justification for targeting vulnerable communities.
Previous administrations recognized the basic rights of non-citizens arrested inside the country, allowing them to seek bond unless they had criminal records, with mandatory detention reserved for border arrests. The Trump administration’s July policy expansion, which triggered a wave of lawsuits, sought to criminalize and detain even those with no criminal history.
Judge Bress, writing for the majority and joined by Judge M. Margaret McKeown (a Clinton appointee), affirmed that “the historical understanding of the statute is the better one,” despite the administration’s efforts to twist the law’s language. Judge Carlos Bea, a George W. Bush appointee, dissented, siding with the administration’s regressive interpretation of the 1996 amendment.