Two more federal appeals courts ruled Thursday that ICE cannot hold illegal immigrants arrested inside the United States without bond hearings, the administration's fifth and sixth consecutive losses on the policy and a near-certain trigger for Supreme Court review.
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Wisconsin, ruled 2-1 that the Trump administration was applying the wrong section of federal immigration law when it denied bond hearings to illegal immigrants picked up inside the country. Hours earlier, the San Francisco-based Ninth Circuit issued its own 2-1 ruling reaching the same conclusion. In the Ninth Circuit case, a judge appointed by President Trump sided with the majority.
The rulings land on a legal question that has divided the federal judiciary more sharply than any immigration dispute in years: whether illegal immigrants already living inside the United States can be treated the same as people caught at the border seeking admission. The administration says yes. Six of the eight appeals courts to weigh in say no. And more than 11,000 detained illegal immigrants have already been released by federal judges this year before they could be deported, a number that will keep climbing until the Supreme Court steps in.
The dispute traces back to July 2025, when ICE issued guidance declaring that illegal immigrants picked up anywhere inside the country could be held in mandatory detention without a chance to seek release on bond. The agency treated interior arrests the same as border apprehensions, relying on a provision of federal law that covers people "seeking admission" to the United States.
Thousands of detained illegal immigrants responded by filing court petitions demanding bond hearings. The Seventh Circuit found that the statute the administration cited simply does not apply to people who are already living inside the country, only to those arriving at the border. The distinction matters because immigrants eligible for bond hearings can argue before a judge that they are not flight risks or dangers to the community, and win release while their cases proceed.
The Ninth Circuit reached the same conclusion in its own opinion. The administration has now lost on this question before the Second, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits. Only the Fifth and Eighth Circuits have sided with the government.
The practical fallout has been enormous. The AP reported that more than 30,000 habeas corpus lawsuits have been filed by detainees held without bond, creating what amounts to a crushing workload for federal courts across the country. Judges have released more than 11,000 illegal immigrants held by ICE this year alone, people the administration intended to deport but who are now back in communities awaiting proceedings that can stretch for months or years.
A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson defended the policy, stating that "President Trump and Secretary Mullin are now enforcing the law as it was actually written to keep America safe." But the courts have disagreed with that reading by a lopsided margin.
The administration's legal position is not without support. The Fifth Circuit ruled 2-1 in February that the government may detain interior migrants without bond hearings, holding that illegal immigrants present in the country are still legally "seeking admission." Judge Edith Jones, writing for the majority, was blunt about the statutory text.
"The text says what it says, regardless of the decisions of prior administrations. Years of consistent practice cannot vindicate an interpretation that is inconsistent with a statute's plain text."
But the dissent in that same case, written by Judge Dana Douglas, captured the argument that has prevailed in six other circuits.
"The government's proposed reading of the statute would mean that, for purposes of immigration detention, the border is now everywhere. That is not the law Congress passed."
That framing, the border is everywhere, has become the central fault line. The administration reads the statute broadly. Most appellate courts read it narrowly. And neither side shows any sign of backing down.
The 6-2 split among the circuits makes Supreme Court review all but inevitable. During oral arguments in the First Circuit, U.S. Circuit Judge Sandra Lynch, a Clinton appointee, said plainly: "The Supreme Court is going to have to decide this." Judge Barbara Lagoa, a Trump appointee who dissented from the Eleventh Circuit's ruling against the administration, wrote in her dissent: "The Fifth and Eighth Circuits disagree. So do I. I respectfully dissent."
The earliest the justices could hear the case would be October, when their next term begins. Until then, the patchwork of conflicting rulings means that the government's ability to hold illegal immigrants without bond depends on geography, which circuit a detainee happens to be held in.
This is not the first time the administration's immigration enforcement agenda has run into a judicial wall it did not expect. The Supreme Court blocked Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship earlier this term, and the DOJ has faced setbacks in lower courts on multiple fronts.
The Fifth Circuit itself has sent mixed signals. Last month, a separate panel of that court ruled that ICE cannot hold immigrants longer than 90 days without a bond hearing, a limit that cuts against the administration's position even in a circuit that otherwise backed its broader theory. The full Fifth Circuit later stepped in to block lower court judges from releasing migrants who argued the Constitution required it, but that move only papered over the deeper disagreement.
Meanwhile, Trump-appointed judges have broken with the administration on immigration-related cases in other contexts, a pattern that undercuts any suggestion the losses are simply the product of hostile liberal courts. In Thursday's Ninth Circuit ruling, a Trump appointee joined the majority.
The administration has shown a willingness to take its fights to the highest court. The DOJ has already petitioned the Supreme Court on other executive orders blocked by lower courts, and the mandatory detention question now sits at the top of the list.
For the communities absorbing the consequences, the legal debate is not abstract. More than 11,000 illegal immigrants who were in ICE custody have been released by judges this year. Every one of them was someone the government had detained with the intent to deport. Every one of them is now back in the interior of the country, their cases unresolved.
The administration's position, that federal law authorizes mandatory detention for anyone present illegally, regardless of where they were picked up, has the virtue of simplicity and the backing of two circuit courts. But six circuits have now rejected it, and the courts have been consistent in their reasoning: the statute Congress wrote distinguishes between people at the border and people already inside the country. Whether that distinction makes good policy is a separate question from whether it is the law.
The Supreme Court will almost certainly have the final word. And when it does, the stakes will extend far beyond any single detainee. The answer will determine whether ICE can hold illegal immigrants without judicial review anywhere in the country, or whether every arrest inside American borders triggers a right to argue for release.
For taxpayers and lawful residents who expected the government to enforce immigration law without a permission slip from a federal judge, the wait for clarity has already lasted too long.