Federal appeals courts have issued conflicting rulings on the Trump administration policy of denying detention review for illegal immigrants.
A key plank of President Donald Trump’s program to deport illegal immigrants is expected to reach the nation’s highest court.
The policy in question allows authorities to detain illegal immigrants who have been in the country for years, and do so without releasing them on bond.
Adopted last year, it represented a change from how previous administrations interpreted a specific provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). It also led to a flood of lawsuits from immigrants challenging detention.
Legal experts have speculated that the justices would intervene after several appeals courts issued conflicting interpretations of the law. The result was a patchwork of enforcement across the country, raising questions about how millions of illegal immigrants would be detained.
In a ruling rejecting Trump’s policy, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit suggested it “would be the broadest mass detention-without-bond mandate in our Nation’s history for millions of noncitizens.”
Trump’s Policy
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which amended the INA, required detention without bond for illegal immigrants seeking entry into the country.
The provision at issue says individuals seeking admission “shall be detained” if an immigration officer determines they are “not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted.”
Under Trump’s second administration, the government said this detention mandate applied to individuals who already entered the United States. By contrast, multiple illegal immigrants argued that portion of the INA didn’t apply to them because they were already in the country, and therefore no longer seeking admission or undergoing a formal admissions process.
Instead, they said another provision of the INA—Section 1226—applied and allowed them to receive bond hearings.
Trump’s interpretation represented a dramatic change in federal policy, David Super, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, previously told The Epoch Times.
The position that illegal immigrants apprehended in the interior of the United States may be held without bond “has not been the policy of any prior administration, including the first Trump administration,” Super said.
The policy is part of the administration’s broader immigration strategy, which includes ending so-called “catch and release” efforts, or releasing migrants as they await hearings after being apprehended at the border.
By last month, the administration said it had achieved a full year of zero releases at the border.
Then-Attorney General Pam Bondi suggested in March that the policy helped deter crime. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld the administration’s interpretation of the INA.
“Imagine how many illegal alien crimes could have been averted if the Left had simply followed the law?” Bondi said during an appearance on Fox News.
Attorneys previously told The Epoch Times the policy bolstered immigration enforcement. If detainees are released, the government has to hope people will appear for their immigration proceedings.
Keeping individuals detained gives the government “all the leverage,” making it easier to convince detainees to self-deport instead of waiting months or longer for an immigration hearing they’ll probably lose, former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani told The Epoch Times.
By Matthew Vadum and Sam Dorman
