A federal appeals court in Atlanta has rejected a Trump administration immigration policy that denied bond hearings to many undocumented immigrants facing deportation proceedings.
In a 2-1 ruling issued Wednesday, a panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the Department of Homeland Security’s interpretation of federal immigration law exceeded the authority granted by Congress. The policy allowed immigration officials to deny bond hearings to many undocumented immigrants living in the United States.
Federal appeals courts have reached conflicting conclusions on the policy. The 2nd Circuit ruled similarly last month, while the 5th and 8th circuits previously upheld it. A separate panel of the 7th Circuit split earlier this week.
The dispute before the 11th Circuit involved two Mexican nationals who had been living in the United States since 2019 and 2015 before they were arrested during traffic stops in Florida and later placed into deportation proceedings. According to the ruling, both men were denied the opportunity to request release on bond while their immigration cases remained pending.
Since July, the Department of Homeland Security has applied a policy treating many undocumented immigrants living in the country the same way immigration law treats recent border arrivals. Under the policy, immigration detainees are frequently denied bond hearings entirely, even if they are not considered flight risks and have no criminal record.
Before the policy change, many immigrants arrested within the interior of the United States could ask an immigration judge to release them on bond while their cases proceeded through immigration court. Under mandatory detention rules, immigrants can instead be held in custody without the opportunity to request release while their cases continue.
Unable to request bond hearings before immigration judges under the policy, thousands of detainees have instead turned to federal courts through habeas corpus petitions. Habeas corpus is a legal process that allows people in government custody to ask a court to review whether they are being held lawfully.
At the center of the dispute is the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, a federal immigration law that expanded detention and deportation powers. The Trump administration argues the statute allows immigration officials to hold nearly all undocumented immigrants without bond once deportation proceedings begin.
Writing for the majority, Senior Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus stated that the court was “unpersuaded” by the federal government’s interpretation of the statute. The ruling concluded that Congress did not give the executive branch unlimited authority to detain all undocumented immigrants without the possibility of bond simply because immigration law classifies them as applicants for admission, a legal status tied to whether someone may request release on bond.
The court said Congress historically treated recent border arrivals differently from immigrants already living in the country when deciding who could be held without bond during immigration proceedings.
Circuit Judge Barbara Lagoa dissented, arguing that the law’s text supports the administration’s position. She wrote that undocumented immigrants are considered applicants for admission under existing statutory language and said the majority improperly created an exception that does not appear in the law itself.
The Department of Homeland Security said in a statement that it “strongly disagrees” with the 11th Circuit ruling and remains confident in its legal position. The agency pointed to decisions from other appeals courts and immigration authorities that have upheld the policy.
