Police ICE
Trump's mandatory ICE detention policy struck down in appeals court. Wikimedia Commons/usicegov

A federal appeals court has blocked a Trump administration immigration policy that would have allowed authorities to detain far more migrants without bond hearings, including people who had been living in the US for years.

In a ruling issued Wednesday, the Miami-based 11th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the administration's attempt to significantly expand mandatory detention powers under federal immigration law. Judges warned the policy could have led to the large-scale detention of migrants with jobs, families and long-established lives in the country.

The case centred on a policy change introduced last year that expanded who could be held in immigration detention without the possibility of bond, deepening a wider legal battle over the scope of federal immigration powers.

Court Rejects Expanded Detention Powers

Under previous interpretations, mandatory detention rules mainly applied to migrants stopped near the border shortly after entering the US. People already living inside the country were generally allowed to request bond hearings before an immigration judge.

The administration argued those protections should not apply to many undocumented migrants already living in the US. Under its interpretation, they could still be treated as 'applicants for admission', placing them under stricter detention rules contained in Section 235 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Writing for the majority, Judge Stanley Marcus said Congress never gave the executive branch 'unfettered authority' to detain 'every unadmitted alien' without the possibility of release.

Marcus also wrote that the administration's interpretation did not find 'steady footing' in the text, structure or history of the law. The majority opinion warned the policy could affect millions of migrants, including people with no criminal record who had spent years building lives in the US.

The ruling marks another legal setback for the administration's immigration agenda and adds to a growing divide among federal appeals courts over how detention laws should be applied.

Detention Numbers Continue to Climb

The legal dispute comes as immigration detention numbers continue to increase nationwide. Earlier this year, the number of people held in ICE custody reportedly surpassed 70,000, marking one of the highest detention levels recorded in recent years.

Supporters of the administration's approach argue tougher detention measures are necessary to enforce immigration law and maintain border security. They say mandatory detention reduces the risk of migrants failing to appear for immigration proceedings.

Judge Barbara Lagoa, who dissented from the ruling, argued that previous administrations' failure to fully enforce immigration law should not narrow the meaning of the statute.

The Department of Justice has defended the policy as a lawful interpretation of existing immigration law, though it did not immediately comment following Wednesday's decision, according to Axios.

Supreme Court Fight Appears Increasingly Likely

Federal appeals courts are now split on the issue. The 2nd and 11th Circuits have rejected the policy, while the 5th and 8th Circuits have upheld it. The 7th Circuit recently deadlocked, increasing the likelihood that the issue could eventually be decided by the Supreme Court.

The latest ruling does not end the policy nationwide, but it limits the administration's ability to automatically detain certain migrants without bond hearings in states covered by the 11th Circuit while the broader legal challenge continues.

For now, the decision represents another significant court rejection of the administration's effort to expand immigration detention powers beyond their traditional application.

Writer's pick