- Federal appeals courts rejected mandatory detention policies for millions of immigrants across multiple U.S. circuits.
- The Ninth and Seventh Circuits ruled that immigrants must receive individual bond hearings under current laws.
- Six appellate courts now oppose the policy, making a Supreme Court review likely for the twenty twenty-six term.
The Appeals Court rulings on July 30, 2026, rejected the Trump Administration’s effort to hold millions of immigrants without bond hearings, with decisions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the Seventh Circuit.
The decisions mark the fifth and sixth consecutive appellate losses for the administration’s attempt to expand mandatory detention to long-term residents who initially entered the United States without inspection. Thousands of people in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody, along with millions living in the U.S. interior, could be affected.
Free toolUSCIS Receipt Number Decoder
The Ninth Circuit majority said the government had misread decades-old immigration laws to support mass detention. Judge Daniel Bress, a Trump appointee, wrote the opinion.
People covered by the rulings in the Ninth and Seventh circuits are entitled to individualized bond hearings before an immigration judge. Those hearings determine whether continued detention is necessary in each case.
The Department of Homeland Security rejected the Ninth Circuit’s decision and said it would continue defending the policy.
“The Department of Homeland Security strongly disagrees with the Ninth Circuit panel and is confident in its legal position regarding mandatory detention. President Donald Trump and Secretary Mullin are now enforcing the law as it was actually written to keep America safe.”
The statement came from DHS on July 30. It identified President Donald Trump and Secretary Mullin as continuing to enforce the administration’s interpretation of the law.
The litigation centers on a July 8, 2025, ICE memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Regarding Detention Authority for Applicants for Admission.” The directive treated certain long-term U.S. residents who had entered without inspection as “applicants for admission.”
That classification placed them under INA § 235(b), which the administration interpreted to require detention without bond. The legal challenge argues that the government cannot categorically deny hearings based only on a person’s original manner of entry.
The policy also drew support from Congress. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed on July 4, 2025, provided $45 billion in new funding for ICE detention capacity over four years.
The rulings deepen an existing circuit split. Six circuits now reject the policy: the Second, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh circuits. The Fifth and Eighth circuits have upheld it, although the Fifth Circuit imposed a 90-day limit on detention without a hearing on July 2, 2026.
The Second Circuit previously described the administration’s approach as the “broadest in our Nation’s history.” The latest decisions prevent the government from automatically denying bond hearings to millions of noncitizens because of their initial entry method, even when they have strong U.S. ties or no criminal record.
The split could send the dispute to the Supreme Court. The research identifies review during the October 2026 term as likely.
A Brazilian resident became a central example in the litigation
Ricardo Barbosa da Cunha, a Brazilian national, had lived in the United States for 20 years when ICE detained him in September 2025 under the no-bond policy. He had no criminal history and children who are U.S. citizens.
Courts later ordered his release. They found that he was neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community.
His case illustrated the consequences of applying the policy to people with long-standing family and community ties. The new rulings require immigration judges in the affected circuits to examine those individual circumstances rather than deny a hearing automatically.
The decisions arrived as the administration defended its broader detention strategy in other proceedings. DHS General Counsel James Percival said on June 25, 2026, while discussing related Supreme Court victories, that officials remained committed to “the rule of law and common sense.” He also emphasized the use of “important tools to continue securing our borders.”
The Justice Department took a harder line in a February 9, 2026, statement about the growing habeas caseload.
“If rogue judges followed the law in adjudicating cases and respected the Government’s obligation to properly prepare cases, there wouldn’t be an 'overwhelming' habeas caseload.”
The two new appellate rulings put the bond-hearing question on separate tracks across the country. Immigration consequences may vary by circuit, procedural posture and the facts of an individual case.
This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified immigration attorney about your specific case.
