Appeals court rejects Trump detention policy, setting up likely Supreme Court fight

A federal appeals court in New York dealt the Trump administration a major setback Monday, rejecting a policy that would have let U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement jail most people it seeks to deport without any chance to ask a judge for bond.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said ICE’s reading of the law was “flawed, implausible and unprecedented,” and the panel warned it could produce “the broadest mass detention-without-bond mandate in our Nation’s history for millions of noncitizens.” The ruling, written by Judge Joseph Bianco, a Trump appointee, and joined by Judges Jose Cabranes and Alison Nathan, is the first appellate decision to reject the administration’s position.

The case centered on Ricardo Aparacido Barbosa da Cunha, who had lived in the United States for two decades before immigration agents arrested him. A district court ordered a bond hearing, and an immigration judge later ordered him released. The American Civil Liberties Union Foundation and the New York Civil Liberties Union represent him.

The practical stakes are immediate for undocumented immigrants who entered the country without inspection and admission and have built lives here over years or decades. Under the administration’s approach, many could be locked up for months or longer while their deportation cases move forward, with no individualized bond hearing to test whether detention is necessary.

The decision also deepens a widening split among the federal appeals courts. The Louisiana-based 5th Circuit ruled on February 6 that the administration could require mandatory detention for many noncitizens arrested inside the country. The Missouri-based 8th Circuit followed on March 25 with a 2-1 ruling holding that federal law requires ICE to detain the vast majority of people it is seeking to deport without bond hearings.

That split matters because geography now shapes liberty. The 8th Circuit ruling has immediate force in Minnesota, while the 5th Circuit decision binds district courts in Texas. The 2nd Circuit’s ruling, by contrast, now places New York and other states in its jurisdiction on the opposite side of a growing legal divide.

The conflict has already produced sharply different results in the lower courts. POLITICO reported that more than 400 district judges in 40 states had rejected the administration’s approach in more than 5,000 cases, while 41 judges, nearly all Trump appointees, had backed ICE in about 250 cases.

Attorney General Pam Bondi called the 8th Circuit ruling a “massive court victory against activist judges,” underscoring how politically charged the issue has become. The 2nd Circuit also said the government’s interpretation would raise serious constitutional questions, including due-process concerns, making Supreme Court review increasingly likely as the courts move farther apart.