Two Appeals Courts Strike Down Trump-Era Mandatory Detention Policy

On a Thursday that felt like a legal turning point, two federal appeals courts in California and Illinois delivered verdicts that could reshape how the U.S. handles undocumented immigrants.

In a 2‑1 decision, the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco ruled that the Trump administration’s policy of holding undocumented immigrants in detention without a bond hearing was unlawful. Judge Daniel Bress, a former Trump appointee, wrote the opinion, joined by former Clinton appointee Judge Margaret McKeown. They held that the 1996 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) limits detention to those apprehended at the border or shortly thereafter. The court made it clear that people who have lived in the United States for years, built families and livelihoods, must be granted a bond hearing before any detention can be imposed. The ruling will bind all lower courts in the Ninth Circuit’s jurisdiction, which spans nine states and two U.S. territories along the southern border.

Across the country, the Seventh Circuit in Chicago delivered a similar blow. Judge Joshua Kolar, a Biden appointee, penned the majority opinion, joined by Judge Candace Jackson‑Akiwumi, also a Biden appointee. They found that the administration’s July guidance—an attempt to broaden mandatory detention to immigrants arrested inside the country—was inconsistent with the INA and violated the law. The panel underscored that the law does not create a blanket rule of mandatory detention for all undocumented immigrants; instead, detention is a tool used only when it is necessary to protect the public or to ensure the removal process can proceed.

These decisions follow a string of similar rulings in other circuits. The Eleventh, Second, Tenth, and Sixth Circuits have also struck down the policy, while the Fifth and Eighth Circuits have upheld it. In total, six of the thirteen federal appeals courts have ruled against the administration, and more than 460 federal judges have rejected the policy in over 10,000 cases. Only 54 judges have supported it in about 1,100 cases.

The policy itself was introduced by the Trump administration in July 2025 with the goal of speeding up the removal of undocumented immigrants. It required ICE to detain anyone arrested inside the United States without a bond hearing, a departure from the standard practice of allowing a bond hearing after 90 days of detention.

The Supreme Court is expected to review the issue in the upcoming term. The Justice Department has already appealed the Sixth Circuit’s decision to the high court, and the American Civil Liberties Union has asked the justices to overturn the Fifth Circuit’s ruling.

For millions of people who have lived in the United States for years without criminal records, the rulings reaffirm that the law requires a bond hearing before detention can be imposed—a safeguard that has been upheld in lower courts across the country.

These decisions also highlight the ongoing legal battle over ICE’s detention practices. The courts have repeatedly found that the agency’s expanded detention policy is inconsistent with the INA and violates the rights of immigrants who are not a threat to public safety.

In short, the Ninth and Seventh Circuits have reinforced the principle that mandatory detention without bond is not authorized by U.S. law for undocumented immigrants who are not a danger to the public. The rulings will affect how ICE detains and releases immigrants in the jurisdictions covered by these courts and may shape the Supreme Court’s eventual decision on the matter.

The current situation is that the Trump administration’s mass detention policy is no longer legally enforceable in the Ninth and Seventh Circuits. The policy remains in place in other circuits that have upheld it, but the split among the appellate courts and the growing number of lower‑court rulings against the policy suggest that the legal landscape is shifting toward greater protection for immigrants’ rights to bond hearings and release from detention.