ATLANTA — A federal appeals court based in Atlanta has struck down the Trump administration’s policy that denies bond hearings to immigrants facing deportation proceedings, adding to a growing disagreement among federal courts nationwide on this immigration enforcement strategy.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals delivered its 2-1 decision on Wednesday. This marks the second federal appeals court to reject the policy, following a similar ruling by the 2nd Circuit in April. However, the 8th and 5th circuit courts have previously supported the administration’s approach that took effect in July. Adding to the confusion, a 7th Circuit panel issued a three-way split decision Tuesday, with judges reaching different conclusions on the matter.
Given the widening disagreement among federal circuits, the U.S. Supreme Court may need to step in to settle the dispute.
The Atlanta court’s decision arose from cases involving two Mexican nationals who had been residing in the United States without legal status since 2019 and 2015. Both men were detained during traffic stops in Florida in September and subsequently entered into removal proceedings.
Under the Department of Homeland Security’s current approach, bond hearings are being refused for individuals in immigration custody, including those who have lived in the country for extended periods without any criminal background. Before this policy change, most non-citizens without criminal records who weren’t apprehended at the border could request a bond hearing while their immigration matters proceeded through the courts.
Bonds were frequently approved when individuals weren’t considered likely to flee. Mandatory custody was typically limited to people who had recently crossed into the U.S.
Senior Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus, nominated by former Democratic President Bill Clinton, authored the majority opinion with support from Circuit Judge Robin Rosenbaum, an Obama appointee. Circuit Judge Barbara Lagoa, appointed by Trump, wrote the dissenting opinion.
The majority decision stated they were “unpersuaded by the Government’s re-interpretation” of federal law provisions that the administration claims authorize indefinite detention without bond for people “seeking admission” to the country.
“Simply put, the language that Congress has chosen to use does not grant to the Executive unfettered authority to detain, without the possibility of bond, every unadmitted alien present in the country,” the court wrote. The judges noted that based on the statutory language, “it appears to us that Congress has instead preserved the longstanding border-interior distinction for the purposes of detention, a position it has taken for over a hundred years.”
Judge Lagoa disagreed with her colleagues, stating, “There is no dispute that unlawfully present aliens are applicants for admission pursuant to the deeming provision.”
“The majority’s argument amounts to the claim that the provision fits arriving aliens better. Maybe so,” she wrote, while adding that “a more comfortable fit does not allow us to read an exception” into existing law.
Government attorneys have maintained that the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 justifies the mandatory detention approach. That legislation streamlined deportation procedures for recent arrivals lacking proper documentation, though separate laws permitted people already residing in the country to request bond from immigration judges.
However, Todd Lyons, acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, announced in July that all individuals in removal proceedings would receive the same treatment as recent border crossers.
Without access to immigration judges for bond requests, detained individuals are filing habeas corpus petitions in federal court to contest their confinement. This has created an overwhelming caseload for federal courts, with over 30,000 lawsuits submitted by people held without bond as the Trump administration implements widespread deportation efforts.
