OUTRAGEOUS! Far-Left Ninth Circuit Rules Illegal Aliens Arrested Inside US Cannot Be Held in Mandatory Detention

Divided panel deepens nationwide circuit split and sets up another potential Supreme Court immigration showdown.

The notoriously liberal Ninth Circuit handed the Trump administration a major setback Thursday, ruling 2–1 that illegal aliens apprehended inside the United States generally cannot be subjected to mandatory detention without access to a bond hearing while they fight deportation.

In Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, the divided panel affirmed a lower court ruling in favor of a class of illegal aliens detained at the Northwest ICE Processing Center in Tacoma, Washington.

The majority, led by Trump-appointed Judge Daniel Bress and joined by Clinton-appointed Judge Margaret McKeown, held that aliens present without admission who are apprehended in the interior fall under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 (which allows for bond hearings) rather than the mandatory detention provisions of § 1225(b)(2)(A).

The court claimed Congress in 1996 never intended the strict no-bond rules to apply to those who successfully snuck past the border and embedded themselves in American communities for years.

Judge Carlos Bea dissented, correctly arguing that the statute treats those who entered without inspection as “applicants for admission” who are “seeking admission,” and therefore subject to mandatory detention.

Bea pointed out the absurdity of Congress requiring detention for those stopped at the border while letting those who evade detection and live here illegally walk free on bond to potentially abscond. Read the Ninth Circuit’s 99-page opinion here.

The Ninth Circuit’s decision binds courts across California, Arizona, Nevada, Washington, and other states in the circuit—precisely the regions that have long served as magnets for illegal immigration and sanctuary policies. It guarantees more habeas petitions, more releases, and more opportunities for illegal aliens to disappear while their cases drag on for years.

The ruling means immigrants who entered the U.S. illegally but are later arrested inside the country generally cannot automatically be held without bond in the Ninth Circuit. pic.twitter.com/AzHpAptHuV

— SCOTUS Wire (@scotus_wire) July 30, 2026

This is the fifth federal appeals court to reject the Trump administration’s common-sense reinterpretation of immigration law.

The Fifth and Eighth Circuits have sided with the government, recognizing that illegal entrants should not get a free pass simply because they made it past the border. The Second, Sixth, Tenth, Eleventh, and now Ninth Circuits have gone the other way.