A federal appeals court has ruled that the Trump administration cannot jail immigrants without bond, citing serious constitutional questions and setting the stage for a potential U.S. Supreme Court review. The unanimous decision from a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City on Tuesday directly conflicts with rulings from the 8th and 5th Circuits, which have upheld the policy implemented by President Donald Trump's administration in July 2025.
Ruling Highlights Constitutional Concerns
Judge Joseph F. Bianco, writing for the panel that also included Judges Alison J. Nathan and Jose A. Cabranes, stated that the government's interpretation of the immigration statute defies its plain text. The court noted that the policy would represent the broadest mass-detention-without-bond mandate in U.S. history for millions of noncitizens, raising serious constitutional questions. Bianco, a Trump appointee, joined Nathan (appointed by Joe Biden) and Cabranes (appointed by Bill Clinton) in the ruling.
Policy Shift and Its Impact
Under the new policy, the Department of Homeland Security has denied bond hearings to immigrants arrested across the country, including those who have lived in the U.S. for years without criminal records. This marks a departure from previous administrations, where most noncitizens without criminal histories were given an opportunity to request bond hearings while their cases moved through immigration court. Bond was often granted to those deemed not to be flight risks, with mandatory detention limited to recent arrivals.
The change has overwhelmed federal courts, with more than 30,000 lawsuits filed by immigrants detained under the Trump administration's mass deportation campaign. Many immigrants, unable to request bond in immigration court, have turned to federal courts through habeas corpus petitions.
Government's Legal Justification
Attorneys for the Trump administration argue that the mandatory detention policy is legal under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. That law streamlined deportation for new arrivals but previously allowed immigrants already in the country to seek bond from an immigration judge under separate legislation. In July 2025, Todd Lyons, acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, declared that all immigrants targeted for deportation would be treated the same as new arrivals.
The 2nd Circuit panel found that the government's interpretation defies the law's plain text, purpose, and history, noting that Congress established a tiered system based on how long an immigrant had been in the country. Over 370 federal judges—approximately 90%—who have considered habeas cases have rejected the government's approach.
Case in Point
The case involves Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha, a Brazilian man who entered the U.S. around 2005, applied for asylum in 2016, and was granted work authorization. He has no criminal record, owns a home in Massachusetts, lives with his wife and two U.S. citizen children, and runs a small construction business. Arrested on an administrative warrant in September 2025, he was placed in removal proceedings and filed a habeas petition after being subjected to mandatory detention. The court noted that detaining noncitizens like Barbosa da Cunha for a substantial period would raise serious constitutional questions, especially since the government failed to explain how it would bear a reasonable relation to any legitimate purpose.
Reactions
Amy Belsher, director of Immigrants’ Rights Litigation at the New York Civil Liberties Union, praised the ruling, stating that the government cannot mandatorily detain millions of noncitizens without an opportunity to seek release, as it defies the Constitution and basic human decency.
The Department of Homeland Security responded by pointing to a Board of Immigration Appeals ruling that upheld the mandatory detention policy, asserting that President Trump and DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin are enforcing the law as written to keep America safe. DHS added that judicial activists have been repeatedly overruled by the Supreme Court on these questions and expressed confidence that ICE will be vindicated by higher courts.
