A federal appointee of President Donald Trump was among those who ruled against the Trump administration, stating that the U.S. cannot hold migrants living in the country illegally without bond hearings while they await deportation proceedings.
Judge Aaron Bress authored the opinion in the 2-1 decision for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, whose jurisdiction includes the entire West Coast.
The court said the Trump administration misinterpreted a 1996 law it used to justify detaining migrants without bond hearings.
The ruling could potentially affect millions of migrants living in the U.S. who are seeking to remain in the country after living there for decades without legal status.
RELATED STORY | Federal immigration agents used racial slurs during Los Angeles raids, court evidence shows
“The government’s change in policy has resulted in detained aliens filing thousands of habeas petitions in federal courts across the country, seeking bond hearings and possible release from detention. Some of these detained aliens have resided in the United States for lengthy periods,” Bress wrote.
“The aliens at issue here remain subject to mandatory detention if they commit qualifying criminal offenses, and they may be denied bond and held pending their removal proceedings if they pose flight risks or dangers to the community.”
The Trump administration cited the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, arguing the U.S. can detain immigrants facing removal proceedings and that some groups must remain in mandatory detention without bond hearings.
RELATED STORY | Supreme Court clears way to end TPS program protections for Haitians and other immigrants
In 2025, the Trump administration issued guidance broadly interpreting the law to include undocumented immigrants already living in the U.S., even those who had been in the country for years, making them subject to mandatory detention without bond hearings. The policy treated undocumented immigrants already in the country the same as newly arriving migrants at the border.
It is the fifth federal appeals court to rule against the Trump administration on the issue, while two appeals courts have sided with the White House. The split among the courts increases the likelihood that the Supreme Court will ultimately decide the matter.
