A federal appeals court has dealt a significant blow to the Trump administration's immigration enforcement strategy, ruling that migrants detained inside the United States cannot be automatically denied the chance to seek release on bond. The decision, handed down Thursday by a divided three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, deepens an existing split among federal courts over the legality of mandatory detention for noncitizens arrested in the interior. Main Developments Writing for the majority, 9th Circuit Judge Daniel Bress — a Trump appointee — rejected the administration's argument that Congress had authorized mandatory detention for immigrants arrested inside the country. He was joined by Judge M. Margaret McKeown, a Clinton appointee. Judge Carlos Bea, a George W. Bush appointee, dissented, arguing that the plain text of a 1996 congressional amendment supported the administration's position. The ruling applies specifically to immigrants who have already entered the United States and are arrested by immigration officials. Under the policy challenged in court, those individuals were held without any opportunity for a bond hearing, a departure from decades of precedent. The administration last month asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on the issue, and the new ruling increases pressure on the high court to resolve the conflict. Read also: Why a 30-year-old deportation court is finally being tested Background For years, most noncitizens without criminal records who were arrested inside the U.S. could request a bond hearing while their immigration cases proceeded. Mandatory detention was typically reserved for people apprehended at the border. That changed in July 2025, when immigration officials issued new guidance expanding mandatory detention to the interior as part of the administration's mass deportation campaign. The policy triggered a wave of federal lawsuits from detained immigrants seeking release. Some judges who ordered bond hearings accused the administration of repeatedly violating court orders. The Trump administration has argued that a 1996 change to immigration law allowed mandatory detention beyond the border, even though previous administrations never enforced it that way. Four other appeals courts have also rejected the policy. However, the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans and the Eighth Circuit in St. Louis have sided with the administration, creating a widening circuit split that legal experts say makes Supreme Court review more likely. Why It Matters The ruling directly affects thousands of immigrants currently held in detention without the possibility of bond. It also underscores a fundamental disagreement among federal courts over the scope of executive power in immigration enforcement. If the Supreme Court ultimately upholds the administration's interpretation, it would mark a historic shift in how the U.S. treats immigrants arrested inside the country. The Department of Homeland Security said it "strongly disagrees" with the ruling and remains confident in its legal position, stating that the administration is "enforcing the law as it was actually written." The outcome of this legal battle will shape not only detention practices but also the broader debate over immigration enforcement priorities. What's Next The administration has already asked the Supreme Court to consider the mandatory detention issue, and the deepening circuit split makes it more likely the justices will agree to hear the case. Oral arguments and a decision could come within the next term. In the meantime, the 9th Circuit's ruling will remain in effect within its jurisdiction, which covers nine western states, unless the Supreme Court intervenes.