A federal appeals court in the western United States ruled on July 30, 2026 that the Trump administration cannot keep detained migrants locked up without giving them a chance to ask a judge for release. This court, called the Ninth Circuit, is the sixth federal appeals court to say no to the administration's detention policy.

The 2–1 decision was published on the court's official website (Ninth Circuit opinion). Judge Daniel Bress, appointed by President Trump, wrote the ruling, and Judge M. Margaret McKeown, appointed by President Clinton, agreed. Judge Carlos Bea, appointed by President George W. Bush, disagreed with the ruling (Al Jazeera).

Here is the background. When the government detains someone who is not a US citizen, it sometimes holds them without offering a bond hearing. A bond hearing is a court proceeding where a judge decides whether the person can be released from custody while their immigration case is being decided. The Trump administration's policy, issued in July 2025, expanded this no-hearing rule to include immigrants arrested anywhere inside the United States, not just those caught at the border. Before that, the rule mostly applied to people detained at or near points of entry.

Four other federal appeals courts have also rejected the policy. The Second Circuit, based in New York, ruled against the no-bond policy in April 2026 (AP News). The Eleventh Circuit, based in Atlanta, followed in May 2026 (AP News). The Sixth Circuit held in a May 2026 opinion, Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft (case reference 26a0139p-06), that certain immigrants can seek bond hearings before an immigration judge and that the Constitution's Due Process Clause requires such hearings (Sixth Circuit opinion).

Two other appeals courts have gone the other way. The Fifth Circuit, based in New Orleans, had a complicated path. A panel of three judges ruled 2–1 on July 2, 2026 that the administration cannot hold migrants without bond hearings past 90 days of detention, a decision that could affect thousands of immigrants detained in Texas (Reuters). But eleven days later, on July 13, 2026, the full Fifth Circuit reversed that decision, putting the no-bond policy back in place (Stateline). The court had agreed on July 10 to reconsider the earlier ruling (Reuters). The Eighth Circuit, based in St. Louis, has also sided with the administration.

The US Department of Homeland Security stated it "strongly disagrees with the Ninth Circuit panel and is confident in its legal position regarding mandatory detention" (Al Jazeera).

The Trump administration asked the US Supreme Court last month to take up the issue. The country's federal appeals courts are split, with four saying the policy is wrong and two saying it is allowed. When appeals courts disagree like this, it is called a circuit split, and it is one of the main reasons the Supreme Court agrees to hear a case.

The broader context is that the Supreme Court may feel pressure to step in and settle the disagreement. The Sixth Circuit's ruling relied on the Due Process Clause, a part of the Constitution that protects people from being denied basic legal rights. That adds a constitutional question the Supreme Court would need to answer if it takes the case. The Ninth Circuit covers California, Arizona, Nevada, and other western states, home to some of the largest immigration detention populations in the country.

The Fifth Circuit's reversal is also worth noting. Its first ruling was modest, requiring hearings only after 90 days of detention. But the full court reversed even that limited decision.

The practical effect is that whether a detained migrant can get a bond hearing currently depends on where in the United States they are held. DHS has said it is confident in its legal position, suggesting the administration will not change its detention guidance while waiting for the Supreme Court. The administration's request to the Court, filed in June 2026, argues the case is about executive authority over immigration enforcement. If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, it would likely be in the upcoming term, with a decision possibly arriving in 2027.

For immigration attorneys and advocates, the Ninth Circuit decision means they can now demand bond hearings for migrants arrested in the interior of states within that circuit. In areas covered by the Fifth and Eighth Circuits, the no-bond policy remains in force. This divide will persist until the Supreme Court intervenes or Congress changes the law.