Third Federal Appeals Court Rejects Ice’s Mandatory Detention Push

An Ohio-based federal appeals court Monday became the latest to reject ICE’s effort to detain the vast majority of people it is seeking to deport without offering a chance for bond — even if they’ve lived in the U.S. for decades without incident.

A divided panel of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Trump administration’s mass detention policy — the latest victory for immigrant advocates on a likely march to the Supreme Court. The ruling follows similar victories in the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit and the New York-based 2nd Circuit. Two appeals courts, the 5th Circuit and the 8th Circuit, have sided with the Trump administration. Another, the 7th Circuit, deadlocked on the issue.

“Petitioners are more than just names on a pleading. Petitioners have lived in the United States for years or decades,” Judge Eric Clay, an appointee of Bill Clinton, wrote for the majority in Monday’s ruling, which was joined by Judge Guy Cole, Jr., another Clinton appointee.

“All appear to contribute to their neighborhoods and local communities. Many are the primary breadwinners or essential caregivers for their families, which include their children who were born here and are citizens of the United States … [O]ur understanding of [immigration law] ensures that noncitizens like Petitioners should have a forum to explain that their backgrounds and connections to their communities justify release on bond.”

The judges also concluded that detention without bond for people who lived at liberty in the United States for years would be a violation of the Constitution’s right to due process.

Judge Eric Murphy, a Trump appointee, dissented from the decision.

The ruling echoes the position adopted by the vast majority of district court judges across the country who have heard these cases. More than 425 judges — including a majority of those appointed by President Donald Trump — have said the Trump administration’s expanded detention practices run afoul of 30-year-old immigration laws. About 50, the vast majority of whom were appointed by Trump, have sided with the administration’s view,

At the heart of the issue is a 30-year-old immigration statute that requires the detention — without bond — of all “applicants for admission” to the U.S. while they are “seeking admission” to the country. For decades, administrations of both parties applied this to people who had newly arrived in the country, perhaps by crossing the southern border.

Those residing in the country’s interior, often for years, were categorized under a different statute that allowed them to seek a bond hearing before an immigration judge before ICE could lock them up.

But last July, ICE adopted a new interpretation of the law, declaring that anyone targeted for deportation by ICE would be treated as an “applicant for admission,” subjecting them to mandatory detention. That decision was backed up in October by the Board of Immigration Appeals, a panel of immigration judges who set national policy for executive branch-run immigration courts that handle deportation proceedings.