A fourth appeals court rejects ICE mass detention policy

A Denver-based federal appeals court Tuesday became the fourth to reject ICE’s bid to subject millions of people — most of whom have lived in the U.S. for years and have no criminal records — to the prospect of detention without bond. A unanimous three-judge panel of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the Trump administration’s unprecedented expansion of mass detention relies on an inaccurate reading of decades-old laws that had never been used for the breathtaking scope of the Trump administration’s mass detention effort. The ruling, authored by Biden appointee Richard Federico, repeatedly emphasized that the fight — which has flooded courthouses all over the country and led to an overwhelming rebuke of the administration by hundreds of distinct court judges — is likely headed for the Supreme Court. “In our circuit, thousands of noncitizens are likely subject to mandatory detention under the Government’s newfound statutory reading and policy,” wrote Federico, joined by Obama appointee Robert Bacharach and Reagan appointee David Ebel. “Many more legal battles over this policy are currently playing out in courts across the country. Five circuits have already weighed in. Ultimately, only one court, the Supreme Court, can settle this issue once and for all.” The ruling echoes similar decisions in the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit, the New York-based 2nd Circuit, and the Cincinnati-based 6th Circuit. Two appeals courts, the 5th Circuit and the 8th Circuit, have sided with the Trump administration. Rulings are pending in five other circuits. In addition to the 4-2 split among appeals courts, more than 460 federal judges have rejected the administration’s approach in more than 9,500 cases, compared to 54 judges who have endorsed the policy in about 1,000 cases. Last week, the Justice Department petitioned the Supreme Court to take up the issue. 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 crossed the southern border. Those living inside the country could also be detained under a different section of the law that afforded them a chance for a bond hearing to prove they could live safely in their communities. But nearly a year ago, 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. The result has been a deluge of emergency lawsuits filed by immigrants detained under the new policy. That crush of so-called “habeas” petitions has overwhelmed courthouses and the Justice Department, straining relations between DOJ attorneys and judges, exposing rifts within the administration itself and disrupting the lives of tens of thousands of people whose detentions were later deemed illegal. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.