...
By Dan Gooding
Associate News Editor
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
A federal judge appointed by President Donald Trump was among those who ruled Tuesday that the mandatory detention of immigrants by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is illegal.
While the White House and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have insisted that ICE has the authority to hold immigrants marked for deportation without bail, the decision out of New York could mean a drastic shift for thousands of detainees.
“The government’s novel interpretation of the immigration statutes defies their plain text," Judge Joseph Bianco wrote, referring to how ICE had interpreted immigration laws passed by Congress.
Read More on Politics
Newsweek reached out to DHS and the Department of Justice via email for comment Tuesday morning.
Why the Ruling Matters
The 3-0 ruling marks another loss for Trump's strict immigration policies, which were popular among voters in the 2024 election but have since seen widespread division among the public and lawmakers.
Because the ruling came from the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, the case could next move to the U.S. Supreme Court.
...
ICE Mandatory Detention Ruling: What To Know
The court ruled that ICE cannot automatically detain, without bond, immigrants who entered the U.S. unlawfully in the past and have been living in the interior of the country for years while their removal cases are pending.
The court rejected the government’s argument that these immigrants fall under mandatory detention rules set by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Instead, the court held that their detention is governed by a different section of the law, which allows release on bond if an immigration judge finds that the person is not a flight risk or a danger.
The ruling affirmed a lower-court decision ordering ICE to provide a bond hearing to Ricardo Cunha, a Brazilian national who had lived in the U.S. for more than 20 years, had no criminal record, and had a long‑pending asylum application.
The panel concluded that ICE’s recent interpretation, adopted in July 2025 under Trump, that would require mandatory detention for millions of long‑term undocumented immigrants, “defies” the plain text of the law and raises serious constitutional concerns.
"Today, although we part ways with two other circuits that have addressed this question, we join the overwhelming majority of federal judges across the Nation to consider it and conclude that the government’s novel interpretation of the immigration statutes defies their plain text," Bianco wrote, referring to cases in Louisiana and Missouri in which appeals court judges ruled in favor of the government.
Will the Case Reach the Supreme Court?
The decision deepens a growing split among federal appeals courts and increases the likelihood that the issue will ultimately land before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Fifth and Eighth Circuits have issued divided rulings backing the government’s position, finding that undocumented immigrants inside the country remain subject to mandatory detention without bond. By contrast, the 2nd Circuit now joins the Seventh Circuit, which reached a similar conclusion at an earlier stage, in rejecting ICE’s expanded detention authority.
The divide means immigration enforcement can look markedly different depending on where an immigrant is arrested. In states covered by the 2nd Circuit—New York, Connecticut and Vermont—non‑criminal immigrants detained by ICE are now more likely to receive bond hearings. In other jurisdictions, ICE may continue pressing its broader detention policy.
For ICE, Tuesday's ruling limits the agency’s ability to detain large numbers of long‑term undocumented immigrants without individual assessments, at least in the 2nd Circuit. Absent further appellate reversals or a Supreme Court decision, immigration judges in those states must continue evaluating flight risk and danger rather than defaulting to detention.
For immigrants, particularly those with long‑pending asylum cases or deep family and community ties, the ruling provides a measure of protection against prolonged detention while removal proceedings, which often last years, play out.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines