The mass detention plan of President Donald Trump's administration faces a new defeat, after the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the plan to subject millions of immigrants to mandatory detention without bail.

This decision is binding on lower courts in the states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. Other courts have decided in the same sense, expanding the blockade to this policy of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE).

The Ninth Circuit's 2-1 ruling found that the Trump administration had misinterpreted decades-old immigration laws to justify its policy of mass immigration detention.

ICE intended to apply at the national level – and for people who have been living in the US for several years – a 1996 policy that is used for people detained while crossing the border or shortly thereafter.

“The administration's change in policy has resulted in thousands of detained aliens filing habeas corpus petitions in federal courts across the country, requesting bond hearings and possible release,” Trump-appointed Judge Daniel Bress wrote for the majority.

The judge adds that President Trump's policy does not comply with a determination of Congress.

“The administration's position implies that Congress, in 1996, introduced a significant change in immigration laws by subjecting millions of undocumented aliens present in the United States to mandatory detention, but that this change went unnoticed by the Executive Branch for the next three decades,” the opinion says. “Accordingly, we do not believe that Congress, in 1996, introduced as drastic a change to our immigration detention system as the one the administration now supports.”

A case that defends thousands

The ruling issued by the Ninth Circuit is the result of a lawsuit filed by the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

The lead plaintiff was Ramón Rodríguez Vázquez, who was arrested at his home in Washington state, despite having no criminal record and having lived for more than 15 years in the United States, raising a family with his wife, his four children and now his grandchildren.

“This ruling restores the right to a bond hearing for members of the [suing] class and all people like Mr. Rodriguez detained in the Ninth Circuit, as they go through this long and difficult process,” said Matt Adams, legal director of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project. “And, just as important, it upholds the rule of law, making clear that the administration cannot change the law unilaterally.”

This ruling joins similar decisions by four other federal appeals courts: the Eleventh Circuit (based in Atlanta); the Second Circuit (seated in New York); the Tenth Circuit (seated in Colorado), and the Sixth Circuit (seated in Cincinnati).

The decisions of these courts protect, for now, only immigrants from the states that cover those jurisdictions.

The ACLU recalls that for decades, immigrants in deportation proceedings detained by ICE have generally had the right to request their release before an immigration judge.

“In mid-2025, the Trump administration suddenly adopted a radical new reinterpretation of immigration laws and declared that anyone who entered without inspection must be detained without access to bail,” the group warns. “Among those affected were people eligible to obtain legal status, including those with long-pending immigration applications that had been waiting for years due to a backlog of administrative procedures.”

My KhanhNgo, senior staff attorney at the ACLU Immigrant Rights Project, highlighted how more courts are limiting the current administration's immigration actions.

"The courts have ruled once again that the Trump administration's cruel and radical reinterpretation of our country's detention laws cannot stand. We are very happy for our clients and their families," he said.

This news has been tken from authentic news syndicates and agencies and only the wordings has been changed keeping the menaing intact. We have not done personal research yet and do not guarantee the complete genuinity and request you to verify from other sources too.