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/.

Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship, rejecting Trump’s proposed limits

WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a broad conception of birthright citizenship, rejecting President Donald Trump’s executive order declaring that children born to people who are in the United States illegally or temporarily are not American citizens. By a 6-3 vote, the court struck down Trump’s order. A bare majority of five justices, in an opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, held that the long-settled understanding of the 14th Amendment, adopted after the Civil War, makes a citizen of anyone born in the country, with very limited exceptions, “Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights—to freely participate in our political community. The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land,’” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court, citing congressional debate over the amendment, “We keep that promise today.” A sixth justice, Brett Kavanaugh, disagreed about the constitutional ruling, but pointed to a federal law that he said broadly conveys birthright citizenship. Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas would have upheld Trump’s proposed restrictions. Related Stories The Supreme Court is seen in Washington, May 18, 2026. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File) The divided Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship decision exposes sharp rifts among justices 3 MIN READ 414 Activists celebrate the Supreme Court's ruling on birthright citizenship, outside of the Supreme Court on Capitol Hill, Tuesday, June 30, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana) Takeaways from Supreme Court term: Trump’s power is enhanced, but he lost some high-profile cases 5 MIN READ 77 The U.S. Supreme Court is seen Monday, June 29, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib) Supreme Court strikes down limits on party spending in federal elections, backing Republican appeal 3 MIN READ 94 “The Court today takes the extraordinary step of holding facially unconstitutional the President’s Order excluding from citizenship the children of foreign temporary visitors and illegal aliens,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a 91-page dissent, more than three times as long as Roberts’ opinion. “In doing so, the Court adds to the sad history of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was designed and understood to secure equal rights for the freed blacks but has instead been repurposed for political projects that the Reconstruction Congress did not support.” The Republican president’s restrictions had been blocked by several lower courts and had not taken effect anywhere in the U.S. Trump said the decision was “too bad for our Country” and wrongly suggested that Congress could “easily” address it with legislation. The majority decision rests on constitutional grounds. It would take an amendment to overcome the decision. During arguments in April, both conservative and liberal justices questioned the order’s legality in a momentous case that was magnified by Trump’s unprecedented attendance in the courtroom. The case framed another test of Trump’s assertions of executive power that defy long-standing precedent for a court with a conservative majority and a robust view of presidential power that has largely ruled in his favor. In the notable exceptions when the court has not, Trump has responded with starkly personal criticisms of the justices. The justices ruled on Trump’s appeal of a lower-court ruling from New Hampshire that struck down the citizenship restrictions. The birthright citizenship order, which Trump signed on the first day of his second term, is part of his administration’s broad immigration crackdown. Birthright citizenship was the first Trump immigration-related policy to reach the court for a final ruling. The justices previously struck down global tariffs Trump had imposed under an emergency powers law that had never been used that way. Trump reacted furiously to the late February tariffs decision, saying he was ashamed of the justices who ruled against him and calling them unpatriotic. He also seemed to recognize the court was likely to rule against him on birthright citizenship, too, using his Truth Social platform to criticize “dumb judges and justices” and wealthy pregnant women from China and elsewhere who come to the U.S. to give birth so their newborns will have American citizenship. Trump’s order would have upended widely held views that the 14th Amendment confers citizenship on everyone born in the U.S., excluding only the children of foreign diplomats and those born to a foreign occupying force. The amendment was intended to ensure that Black people, including former slaves, had citizenship, though the Citizenship Clause is written more broadly. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,” it reads. In a series of decisions, lower courts have struck down Trump’s executive order as illegal. The decisions have invoked the high court’s 1898 ruling in Wong Kim Ark, which held that the U.S.-born child of Chinese nationals was a citizen. Roberts, joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett and the three liberal justices, said the amendment’s language, the historical context and the 1898 case make clear that children born to parents illegally or temporarily in the U.S. “are citizens at birth.” But there was only a bare majority of five justices on the constitutional question. Kavanaugh sided with the majority because of a federal law that makes those children citizens. But he joined the dissenters in finding that Trump’s order does not violate the Constitution. His view would enable a future Congress to change the law to restrict birthright citizenship. The Trump administration had argued that the common view of citizenship is wrong, asserting that children of noncitizens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore are not entitled to citizenship. More than one-quarter of a million babies born in the U.S. each year would have been affected by the executive order, according to research by the Migration Policy Institute and Pennsylvania State University’s Population Research Institute. While Trump has largely focused on illegal immigration in his rhetoric and actions, the birthright citizenship restrictions also would have applied to people who are legally in the United States, including students and applicants for green cards, or permanent resident status. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.