A federal appeals court delivered a major rebuke to the Trump administration's immigration enforcement practices Tuesday, ruling that the government cannot jail millions of immigrants indefinitely without bond hearings, calling the policy constitutionally suspect and the broadest mass-detention mandate in the nation's history.
The unanimous decision from a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City found that the administration's interpretation of immigration law defies the plain text, purpose, and history of the statute. The ruling sets up a potential Supreme Court showdown, as panels on the 8th and 5th circuit courts have already upheld the policy implemented last July.
A Policy That Upends Decades of Practice
Under the Trump administration's approach, the Department of Homeland Security has been denying bond hearings to immigrants arrested across the country, including those who have lived in the U.S. for years without any criminal history. The policy represents a stark departure from previous administrations, when most noncitizens with no criminal record who were arrested away from the border were given the opportunity to request a bond hearing while their cases moved through immigration court. In those cases, bond was often granted to people deemed not to be flight risks, and mandatory detention was limited to those who had just entered the country.
Judge Joseph F. Bianco, who was nominated by Trump, wrote for the panel that included Judge Alison J. Nathan, nominated by former President Joe Biden, and Judge Jose A. Cabranes, nominated by former President Bill Clinton. The panel noted that Congress had established a tiered system for immigration cases based in part on how long an immigrant had been in the country when it passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act 30 years ago.
The Human Cost of Mandatory Detention
The case centers on Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha, a man from Brazil who entered the U.S. around 2005, applied for asylum 10 years ago, and was granted work authorization while his application was under review. He has never been arrested or charged with a crime, owns his own home in Massachusetts where he lives with his wife and two U.S. citizen children, and runs a small construction business. He was arrested on an administrative warrant 7 months ago and placed in removal proceedings. An immigration judge found he was subject to mandatory detention, prompting him to file a habeas petition.
Bianco wrote that the mandatory detention of noncitizens like Barbosa da Cunha for a substantial period of time would raise serious constitutional questions, especially because the government has failed to explain how it would bear a reasonable relation to any legitimate, non-punitive purpose.
Overwhelming the Courts
The new approach has strained the federal courts, with judges across the country facing more than 30,000 lawsuits from immigrants locked up under the Trump administration's mass deportation campaign. Left with no way to request bond in immigration court, many immigrants have turned to the federal courts instead, requesting bond through habeas corpus petitions.
Attorneys for the Trump administration say the mandatory detention policy is legal under the 1996 law. That law streamlined the process to deport people who were newly arriving in the U.S. without permission, but immigrants who were already in the country were still allowed to seek bond from an immigration judge under a different law. That changed last July, when Todd Lyons, acting director of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said all immigrants targeted for deportation would be treated the same way as new arrivals.
Civil Rights Groups Celebrate
Amy Belsher, director of Immigrants' Rights Litigation at the New York Civil Liberties Union, said, "Today's ruling rightly affirms that the Trump administration's policy of detaining immigrants without any process is unlawful and cannot stand." She said, "The government cannot mandatorily detain millions of noncitizens, many of whom have lived here for decades, without an opportunity to seek release. It defies the Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and basic human decency."
In a statement emailed to The Associated Press, the Department of Homeland Security pointed to a Board of Immigration Appeals ruling upholding the mandatory detention policy, and said Trump and DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin "are now enforcing this law as it was actually written to keep America safe." DHS also said, "Regarding decisions from federal courts about mandatory detention, judicial activists have been repeatedly overruled by the Supreme Court on these questions. ICE has the law and the facts on its side and will be vindicated by higher courts."
Why This Matters:
The 2nd Circuit's ruling highlights the profound human consequences of immigration enforcement policies that treat longtime residents with deep community ties the same as recent border crossers. Families like Barbosa da Cunha's—with U.S. citizen children, businesses, and decades of residence—face indefinite detention without any opportunity to demonstrate they pose no flight risk or public safety threat. The policy has generated more than 30,000 federal lawsuits, overwhelming courts and draining resources while separating families and disrupting communities. The split among circuit courts means the Supreme Court may ultimately decide whether the government can detain millions without the due process protections that have existed for decades, a question with far-reaching implications for constitutional rights and the balance between enforcement authority and individual liberty.