10
Loading video...
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 appeals court on Thursday compared the Trump administration's sweeping immigration detention policy to some of the darkest chapters in United States history, including the World War II internment of Japanese Americans, as it ruled that longtime undocumented immigrants are entitled to bond hearings while fighting deportation.
In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit rejected the administration's argument that millions of immigrants who entered the country unlawfully could be held in mandatory detention without access to bond hearings. The ruling adds to a growing split among federal appeals courts that could ultimately force the Supreme Court to resolve the issue.
Writing for the majority, Judge Berner, a Biden appointee, said the government's interpretation of federal immigration law raised profound concerns because it could subject millions of people living in the U.S. to detention without bond. Judge Barbara Milano Keenan, an Obama appointee, joined the opinion, while Judge Allison Jones Rushing, appointed by President Donald Trump, dissented.
Read More on U.S.
"Mass detention of marginalized individuals without due process harkens back to some of the darkest moments in our country's history," Berner wrote. The judge pointed to the detention of Chinese immigrants under the Geary Act in the 1890s and the wartime internment of Japanese Americans, noting that nearly 120,000 people were sent to internment camps during World War II.
"The stain of these detentions on our nation—and the judiciary's abdication of its obligation to protect basic freedoms—continues to haunt us," the opinion said.
The court argued that those historical detention programs were "limited in scope" compared with the detention authority the government claimed Congress created through a disputed interpretation of immigration law. "We decline to do so," the judges wrote.
A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) told Newsweek that the department strongly disagreed with the ruling and was confident in its legal position on mandatory detention.
“That is why DHS recently sought Supreme Court review of a similar decision from the Sixth Circuit," the spokesperson said. "Opinions from the Board of Immigration Appeals and two other federal courts of appeals reflect the soundness of DHS’s legal position.
“This legal position was the nail in the coffin for Biden’s catch and release policies. That is why the left and their activist proxies on the judiciary are resisting it so vigorously. President Trump and Secretary Mullin are now enforcing the law as it was actually written to keep America safe.
“As our record in the U.S. Supreme Court demonstrates, the law is on our side.”
...
What Is the Case About?
The case stems from a 2025 policy shift by the Trump administration that sought to place many undocumented immigrants under a section of federal immigration law requiring detention during removal proceedings. Before that change, immigrants already living in the U.S. generally fell under a separate provision that allowed them to seek release through immigration bond hearings.
The plaintiffs, Oscar Enrique Lopez Garcia and Juan Jose Rivera, had each lived in the U.S. for decades before being detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in 2025. The government did not argue either man posed a danger to the community or a flight risk, but they were initially denied bond hearings under the administration's new interpretation.
The Fourth Circuit concluded that immigrants in their position must be detained under a section of law that permits bond hearings rather than one requiring mandatory detention. The court therefore upheld lower-court rulings ordering that they be given the opportunity to seek release.
Growing Split Among Appeals Courts
The decision comes as courts nationwide wrestle with the Trump administration's detention policy.
The issue has rapidly become one of the most significant immigration battles moving through the federal courts because of its potential impact on millions of immigrants who entered the U.S. without inspection and remain in the country.
Several appeals courts have ruled against the administration's position, while others have sided with it, creating a split that legal observers say makes Supreme Court review increasingly likely.
The Fourth Circuit noted that the First, Second, Third, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits have largely reached the same conclusion as Thursday's ruling, while the Fifth and Eighth Circuits have backed the administration's interpretation.
That widening divide among federal appellate courts is one of the clearest signals that the Supreme Court may eventually step in to provide a nationwide answer.
The administration has consistently argued that immigrants who entered unlawfully remain "applicants for admission" under federal immigration law and therefore fall under mandatory detention provisions. The challengers contend Congress never intended those provisions to apply to people who have spent years or decades living inside the U.S.
"The policy at the heart of these cases reflects a radical interpretation of the law, and marks a major shift from how the government has applied the law over the past several decades," Jennifer Koh, a law professor at Pepperdine University, previously told Newsweek.
"If upheld, it would give immigration authorities the power to incarcerate people based solely on the fact that they entered the country unlawfully--no matter how long they have lived in the country or what their ties are. It provides the government with a significant tool in its mass deportation efforts. It also has serious implications for how the courts understand due process for noncitizens."
Related Story
Denaturalization Cases Surge as Record Numbers Face Losing US Citizenship
Dissent Accuses Majority of Injecting Policy Views
In dissent, Allison Jones Rushing, a Trump appointee, argued that the statutory text clearly supports the administration's position and that the majority let policy concerns drive its interpretation.
Rushing said the majority was focused on the "moral implications" of detention and improperly compared immigration detention to internment camps rather than adhering to the language Congress enacted. She argued that immigrants present in the country without lawful admission are deemed "applicants for admission" under the law and therefore can be held under the mandatory detention provision at issue.
For now, the ruling represents another significant setback for the Trump administration's effort to expand mandatory detention authority, even as the broader legal fight continues to move toward what could eventually become a Supreme Court showdown over the scope of ICE detention powers.
Contact Newsweek editors on this story: Gabe Whisnant and Sam Wilson.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines