A participant ties a red poppy to the fence outside the Aurora US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Processing Center on Wednesday, April 8, 2026, in Aurora, Colorado.
'Big Win': Two More US Courts Reject Trump's Mass Detention of Immigrants
"Today’s decision reaffirms that immigrants who contribute to our communities and have lived here for years deserve dignity, not detention," said US Rep. Pramila Jayapal.
Two separate federal courts on Thursday rejected Trump administration's justification for its mass detention of immigrants.
First, a three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the administration had misconstrued the 1996 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) as mandating detention without bond for all undocumented immigrants in the US.
The court found that the INA's mandatory detention policy only applied to undocumented immigrants who had been apprehended shortly after crossing the border and not to undocumented immigrants who have lived in the US for years after entering the country illegally.
Judge Daniel Bress, an appointee of President Donald Trump, wrote for the majority that the administration's interpretation of the INA would constitute "a major change to the immigration laws by subjecting millions" of undocumented immigrants already living in the US to mandatory detention.
"We accordingly do not think that Congress in 1996 made such a large-scale change to our established system of immigration detention in the way that the government now contends," Bress added.
Shortly after the decision, a three-judge panel on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals similarly rejected the Trump administration's mass detention policy, ruling 2-1 that the government's interpretation of the law "rests upon the illogical use of both legal fiction and ordinary meaning" to determine whether someone who has long lived in the US is "seeking admission" to the US.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, noted that six federal appeals courts so far have ruled against the administration's mass detention policy, while only two have ruled in favor. Decisions on the policy are also pending in three other federal appeals courts.
While predicting that the legal fight over interpretation of the INA is likely headed to the US Supreme Court, Reichlin-Melnick nonetheless said that the rulings were "great news."
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) hailed the 9th Circuit's ruling against the Trump administration as a "big win."
"While this will likely be litigated further," Jayapal wrote in a social media post, "today’s decision reaffirms that immigrants who contribute to our communities and have lived here for years deserve dignity, not detention."
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. US voters have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. Our Fall Campaign is underway, and we need your help. To power our newsroom through the rest of the year, we need to raise $125,000 by midnight on October 31. So if you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
Two separate federal courts on Thursday rejected Trump administration's justification for its mass detention of immigrants.
First, a three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the administration had misconstrued the 1996 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) as mandating detention without bond for all undocumented immigrants in the US.
The court found that the INA's mandatory detention policy only applied to undocumented immigrants who had been apprehended shortly after crossing the border and not to undocumented immigrants who have lived in the US for years after entering the country illegally.
Judge Daniel Bress, an appointee of President Donald Trump, wrote for the majority that the administration's interpretation of the INA would constitute "a major change to the immigration laws by subjecting millions" of undocumented immigrants already living in the US to mandatory detention.
"We accordingly do not think that Congress in 1996 made such a large-scale change to our established system of immigration detention in the way that the government now contends," Bress added.
Shortly after the decision, a three-judge panel on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals similarly rejected the Trump administration's mass detention policy, ruling 2-1 that the government's interpretation of the law "rests upon the illogical use of both legal fiction and ordinary meaning" to determine whether someone who has long lived in the US is "seeking admission" to the US.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, noted that six federal appeals courts so far have ruled against the administration's mass detention policy, while only two have ruled in favor. Decisions on the policy are also pending in three other federal appeals courts.
While predicting that the legal fight over interpretation of the INA is likely headed to the US Supreme Court, Reichlin-Melnick nonetheless said that the rulings were "great news."
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) hailed the 9th Circuit's ruling against the Trump administration as a "big win."
"While this will likely be litigated further," Jayapal wrote in a social media post, "today’s decision reaffirms that immigrants who contribute to our communities and have lived here for years deserve dignity, not detention."
- Trump's Concentration Camp Build-Out Includes Nearly $40 Billion for Warehouse Conversions ›
- The Trump Admin Is Building a Mass Detention System—What Will You Do About It? ›
- 'Awful News for Due Process' as Court Backs Trump's Mass Immigrant Detention ›
- Opinion | Trump's Immigration Policies Have Been Rejected; Why Won't Dems Act Like It? | Common Dreams ›
- Opinion | Trump Admin Faces Legal Challenge in Hemispheric Court Over ICE Protest Crackdown | Common Dreams ›
Two separate federal courts on Thursday rejected Trump administration's justification for its mass detention of immigrants.
First, a three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the administration had misconstrued the 1996 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) as mandating detention without bond for all undocumented immigrants in the US.
The court found that the INA's mandatory detention policy only applied to undocumented immigrants who had been apprehended shortly after crossing the border and not to undocumented immigrants who have lived in the US for years after entering the country illegally.
Judge Daniel Bress, an appointee of President Donald Trump, wrote for the majority that the administration's interpretation of the INA would constitute "a major change to the immigration laws by subjecting millions" of undocumented immigrants already living in the US to mandatory detention.
"We accordingly do not think that Congress in 1996 made such a large-scale change to our established system of immigration detention in the way that the government now contends," Bress added.
Shortly after the decision, a three-judge panel on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals similarly rejected the Trump administration's mass detention policy, ruling 2-1 that the government's interpretation of the law "rests upon the illogical use of both legal fiction and ordinary meaning" to determine whether someone who has long lived in the US is "seeking admission" to the US.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, noted that six federal appeals courts so far have ruled against the administration's mass detention policy, while only two have ruled in favor. Decisions on the policy are also pending in three other federal appeals courts.
While predicting that the legal fight over interpretation of the INA is likely headed to the US Supreme Court, Reichlin-Melnick nonetheless said that the rulings were "great news."
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) hailed the 9th Circuit's ruling against the Trump administration as a "big win."
"While this will likely be litigated further," Jayapal wrote in a social media post, "today’s decision reaffirms that immigrants who contribute to our communities and have lived here for years deserve dignity, not detention."
- Trump's Concentration Camp Build-Out Includes Nearly $40 Billion for Warehouse Conversions ›
- The Trump Admin Is Building a Mass Detention System—What Will You Do About It? ›
- 'Awful News for Due Process' as Court Backs Trump's Mass Immigrant Detention ›
- Opinion | Trump's Immigration Policies Have Been Rejected; Why Won't Dems Act Like It? | Common Dreams ›
- Opinion | Trump Admin Faces Legal Challenge in Hemispheric Court Over ICE Protest Crackdown | Common Dreams ›