Trump's mass detention policy dealt another severe setback

Another federal appeals court has ruled against President Donald Trump's Immigration and Customs Enforcement mass detention policy — putting further pressure on the Supreme Court to take up the matter.

A divided 2-1 three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit, with Trump-appointed Judge Barbara Lagoa being the lone dissenter, rejected the Trump administration's policy of mass denying bond to unauthorized immigrants arrested in the interior of the United States — which, the court noted, is supported by three decades of case law.

Trump officials offered up a reinterpretation of a statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), under which unauthorized immigrants arrested inside the country are "applicants for admission," and therefore cannot be released on bond without a high bar of evidence that they are eligible for admission into the country.

The judges rejected this interpretation, noting that the law applies to a completely different category of people.

"We are unpersuaded by the Government’s re-interpretation of § 1225(b)(2)(A)," wrote the majority. "That provision limits no-bond detention to applicants for admission who are 'seeking admission,' and on the facts of this case, neither Petitioner was seeking lawful entry into the United States after inspection by an immigration officer when he was arrested, nor was either Petitioner taking any cognizable step to obtain the rights and privileges of lawful entry. In fact, neither Petitioner was pursuing any object, let alone 'lawful entry,' when he was detained following a traffic stop."

The judges' ruling, noted Politico legal reporter Kyle Cheney on X, "deepens the split among federal circuits and continues likely path the SCOTUS. 425 district courts have rejected the administration’s detention push — backed now by the 11th and 2nd circuits. 49 have endorsed it, backed by the 5th and 8th circuits. The 7th circuit deadlocked."

One of the most classic cases in which the Supreme Court intervenes in an issue is when multiple appellate courts have heard cases about it and ruled in different ways, as is the case here.