Adivided panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals delivered another blow to the Trump administration's immigration crackdown on Thursday, ruling that immigrants detained inside the United States cannot be automatically denied a chance to seek release on bond while their cases proceed.
The 2-1 decision landed in San Francisco, a courthouse that has become a recurring stop for legal challenges to the administration's mass deportation push. What made the outcome notable wasn't just the result — it was the makeup of the majority. One of the two judges who sided against the administration was appointed by President Trump himself, a detail the White House will find hard to spin away.
Circuit Judge Daniel Bress wrote the majority opinion, joined by Judge M. Margaret McKeown, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton. Judge Carlos Bea, appointed by President George W. Bush, dissented, arguing that a 1996 congressional amendment supports the administration's broader reading of detention law. The disagreement boils down to a question that sounds technical but carries enormous stakes for thousands of immigrants: does federal law require mandatory detention only for people picked up at the border, or does it reach anyone arrested anywhere inside the country?
The administration says the answer is obvious. Homeland Security officials argue they're doing nothing more than enforcing the statute exactly as Congress wrote it back in 1996. That's a tidy explanation. It also happens to be an explanation that five of the seven federal appeals courts to consider the question so far haven't bought.
In its response, the department credited President Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin with what it described as finally enforcing the law as written, casting Thursday's loss as a temporary setback rather than a final answer.
"the historical understanding of the statute is the better one
— Judge Daniel Bress, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
The fight traces back to last July, when immigration officials issued internal guidance expanding mandatory detention to noncitizens arrested well inside U.S. borders, not just those stopped at the border itself. Under prior administrations, most people without a criminal record who were picked up in the interior could ask a judge for a bond hearing while their case played out. The new guidance eliminated that option for a far larger group of people.
The shift triggered a wave of federal lawsuits from immigrants seeking release, and some judges who ordered bond hearings anyway publicly accused the administration of repeatedly ignoring their rulings.
Immigration attorneys say the policy has kept people who pose no flight risk or public-safety threat locked up for months while their cases work through backlogged immigration courts.
A Widening Circuit Split
Thursday's ruling isn't an isolated setback for the administration — it's the latest entry in a growing list. Four other federal appeals courts have already rejected the same detention policy on similar legal grounds, concluding that Congress never intended mandatory detention to sweep so broadly.
Two circuits have gone the other way. The 5th Circuit, based in New Orleans, and the 8th Circuit, based in St. Louis, have both sided with the administration's interpretation of the law.
That split, five circuits one way and two the other, is exactly the kind of disagreement the Supreme Court typically steps in to resolve. The administration formally asked the justices last month to take up the question, hoping for a nationwide answer before more circuits weigh in.
Where the Case Goes From Here
For now, Thursday's ruling directly governs the nine Western states under 9th Circuit jurisdiction, including California, Arizona and Nevada. Elsewhere, the outcome still hinges on which circuit — or eventually the Supreme Court — has the final say.
Where the Circuits Stand
The mandatory detention question has now split the federal appellate bench roughly along these lines:
✓ 9th Circuit (San Francisco): Ruled against the administration, 2-1, on July 30
✓ Four other circuits: Also rejected the expanded detention policy in earlier rulings
✓ 5th Circuit (New Orleans) and 8th Circuit (St. Louis): Sided with the administration's reading of the law
✓ Supreme Court: Asked last month to resolve the growing nationwide split
A final resolution could still be months, if not longer, away.
What It Means for Detained Immigrants
For now, the practical effect is narrow but real: immigrants held within the 9th Circuit's reach retain the right to ask a judge for bond while the broader legal fight plays out.
Advocacy groups are calling the decision a meaningful, if temporary, check on an enforcement strategy they say has kept nonviolent immigrants locked up for months without individualized review. Whether that protection survives depends largely on what the Supreme Court decides to do with the pending appeal.
DHS says it strongly disagrees with the panel's decision and remains confident the mandatory detention policy will ultimately be upheld.— U.S. Department of Homeland Security statement, July 30, 2026
Until the Supreme Court weighs in, if it chooses to at all, the rules for who gets a bond hearing and who doesn't will keep depending largely on which federal circuit a detainee happens to be held in.
