Appeals court partially blocks the Trump administration’s mandatory ICE detention policy

The Trump administration’s policy of detaining most migrants facing deportation without bail has just suffered a setback in court. A three-judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, based in New York, ruled unanimously on Tuesday that the administration cannot broadly apply mandatory detention by classifying nearly any undocumented migrant as an “applicant for admission,” even if they have been living in the United States for years.

The ruling directly challenges the change pushed by Trump last year, which sought to expand mandatory detention — traditionally reserved for those who had recently crossed the border or had criminal records — to virtually anyone in an irregular status, regardless of whether they had been living in the U.S. for years or even decades. Under that policy, thousands of migrants who previously could request a bond hearing before a judge were instead detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) while their cases were being resolved.

In their ruling, the judges described the measure as “the broadest mass-detention-without-bond mandate in our nation’s history for millions of noncitizens” and warned of its potential impact: “The government’s interpretation […] would send a seismic shock through our immigration detention system and society, straining our already overcrowded detention infrastructure, incarcerating millions, separating families, and disrupting communities.”

Judge Joseph Bianco, appointed by Trump himself, was tasked with drafting the opinion. In it, he says that if Congress had intended such a sweeping policy change, it would have made that clear. “If Congress meant to achieve such a radical break from the past, it would not have done so in such an indirect and ambiguous way,” he wrote. Elsewhere in the ruling, he adds: “The government claims that mandatory detention must continue regardless of how long removal proceedings take — even if the noncitizen poses no danger to the community or risk of flight. That is not what the law says.”

The Second Circuit’s ruling is not the first of its kind. For months, federal trial judges across the country have overwhelmingly rejected the mandatory detention policy. A tally cited in the case notes that hundreds of judges have ruled against the government’s position, compared with a small minority who have upheld it.

However, not all courts agree. Two appellate courts — the Fifth Circuit and the Eighth Circuit — have upheld the administration’s interpretation, albeit with internal divisions among the judges. This discrepancy between courts of equal rank, known as a circuit split, is typically the kind of conflict that the Supreme Court ultimately resolves, so all signs point to this case following that path.

Other courts, such as the Third Circuit, are expected to rule in the coming weeks, which could widen the gap in legal interpretations even further. In addition, the scope of the policy and the number of people affected have led to a wave of lawsuits across the country.

The response from the Department of Homeland was immediate. In a statement, the agency argued that it is enforcing the law “as it was actually written to keep America safe.” And its official position has not changed: “ICE has the law and the facts on its side and will be vindicated by higher courts.”

Meanwhile, the Second Circuit’s ruling is already being applied in states such as New York, Connecticut, and Vermont.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition