A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit rejected the Trump administration's policy of mandatory detention without bond for most immigrants arrested by ICE. The New York-based court upheld a district judge's order releasing a Brazilian national who had lived in the United States for more than 20 years.

The policy, implemented last year by the Department of Homeland Security and endorsed by the Board of Immigration Appeals in September, reinterprets a 1990s provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act. It classifies noncitizens who entered the country illegally, even decades ago, and without criminal records as "applicants for admission," subjecting them to mandatory detention pending deportation proceedings. Previously, such individuals were generally eligible for bond hearings to determine if they posed a flight risk or danger.

Circuit Judge Joseph F. Bianco, a Trump appointee, wrote the opinion, joined by Jose A. Cabranes, a Clinton appointee, and Alison J. Nathan, a Biden appointee. The court described the administration's reading of the law as "flawed, implausible, and unprecedented," warning it would impose "the broadest mass-detention-without-bond mandate in our Nation’s history for millions of noncitizens." Such a policy, the judges said, would "strain our already overcrowded detention infrastructure, incarcerate millions, separate families, and disrupt communities."

The ruling creates a circuit split. The 5th Circuit in New Orleans and the 8th Circuit in St. Louis previously upheld the policy earlier this year, allowing ICE to detain immigrants without bond in their jurisdictions. More than 370 district judges nationwide have rejected the administration's position.

The decision applies to New York, Connecticut, and Vermont. It stems from the detention of Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha, arrested by ICE while driving to work despite his long U.S. residency.

Michael Tan, an ACLU attorney representing the Brazilian man, praised the ruling: "The court was right to conclude the Trump administration can't just reinterpret the law at its own whim." The Department of Homeland Security responded that it is "enforcing the immigration detention law as it was actually written to keep America safe" and expects vindication from higher courts, citing past Supreme Court reversals of similar rulings.

The policy supports President Trump's mass deportation initiative by facilitating quicker removals through detention. The circuit split increases the likelihood of Supreme Court review.