{"id":2600851,"date":"2026-05-10T05:34:01","date_gmt":"2026-05-10T09:34:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/trumps-mandatory-detention-policy-appears-poised-for-supreme-court-review\/"},"modified":"2026-05-10T05:36:41","modified_gmt":"2026-05-10T09:36:41","slug":"trumps-mandatory-detention-policy-appears-poised-for-supreme-court-review","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/trumps-mandatory-detention-policy-appears-poised-for-supreme-court-review\/","title":{"rendered":"Trump&#8217;s mandatory detention policy appears poised for Supreme Court review"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"&quot;\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">20<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Ftrumps-mandatory-detention-policy-appears-poised-for-supreme-court-review%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=2600851&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><p>The article explains that the Trump administration\u2019s policy of keeping some illegal immigrants in mandatory detention during deportation proceedings has led to hundreds of lawsuits and a sharp split among U.S. appeals courts, making Supreme Court review increasingly likely.<\/p>\n<p>It focuses on the 11th Circuit\u2019s recent 2-1 ruling against the administration, joining the 2nd Circuit in finding that mandatory detention (without bond) generally does not apply to people already present in the interior of the country, but rather to \u201carriving\u201d aliens at the border seeking lawful entry. in contrast, the 5th and 8th Circuits have upheld the administration\u2019s approach, and the 7th Circuit was split.<\/p>\n<p>The dispute centers on how courts interpret a 1996 immigration law: officials argue that certain noncitizens who are in the interior are effectively \u201cseeking admission,\u201d triggering detention. Many judges reject that reading, saying the law\u2019s detention provisions were intended for border\/port situations, not for people already in the country. The article notes that district and appeals courts have disagreed on what counts as \u201cadmission,\u201d and whether an interior noncitizen is an applicant for admission or already admitted.<\/p>\n<p>with additional rulings pending from other circuits, the Supreme Court may need to resolve the conflict during its next term. The article also highlights that the cases have not yet been appealed to the Supreme Court, but emergency or future appeals could possibly bring the issue before the justices.  <\/p>\n<p class=\"readmore\">\n    <button onclick=\"showReadMore()\" id=\"readmorebtn\">Read more&#8230;<\/button>\n<\/p>\n<hr id=\"line\">\n<span id=\"more\"><\/p>\n<article class=\"fn-body\">\n<p>The <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/trump-administration\/\" type=\"post_tag\" id=\"339\">Trump administration<\/a>\u2018s policy of keeping illegal immigrants in detention during their deportation proceedings has resulted in hundreds of lawsuits and has splintered appeals courts over its legality, leading the issue toward likely <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/supreme-court\/\" type=\"post_tag\" id=\"203\">Supreme Court<\/a> review as more appeals courts weigh in with different interpretations of the policy.<\/p>\n<p>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit became the latest appellate court to add to the divide over the policy of detaining <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/illegal-immigrants\/\" type=\"post_tag\" id=\"1972\">illegal immigrants<\/a>, rather than releasing them on bond, during removal proceedings this week, <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/media.ca11.uscourts.gov\/opinions\/pub\/files\/202514065.pdf\" type=\"link\" id=\"https:\/\/media.ca11.uscourts.gov\/opinions\/pub\/files\/202514065.pdf\">ruling<\/a> 2-1 against the administration on Wednesday. The federal appeals court covering the states of Alabama, Florida, and Georgia joined the 2nd Circuit in ruling against President Donald Trump, while the 5th Circuit and 8th Circuit have handed the president wins on the issue. The 7th Circuit was evenly split on the matter.<\/p>\n<section class=\"explore-more-section\" id=\"wex-recommended-widget\">\n<div class=\"magazine-container single\">\n<h1 class=\"magazine-title mt-2\">Recommended Stories<\/h1>\n<p>             <i class=\"fa-solid fa-play icon\"><\/i>         <\/div>\n<div class=\"explore-grid\">\n<div class=\"explore-card\">                         <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/4561574\/alabama-supreme-court-petition-redrawn-map\/?itm_source=parsely-api\">                             <\/p>\n<div class=\"explore-thumb-wrap\">                                                                                                                                  <\/div>\n<h3>Alabama asks Supreme Court to allow for redrawn congressional map<\/h3>\n<p>                         <\/a>                     <\/div>\n<div class=\"explore-card\">                         <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/4560546\/anti-abortion-groups-urge-supreme-court-maintain-block-mail-order-abortion-pills\/?itm_source=parsely-api\">                             <\/p>\n<div class=\"explore-thumb-wrap\">                                                                                                                                  <\/div>\n<h3>Anti-abortion groups urge Supreme Court to maintain block on mail-order abortion pills<\/h3>\n<p>                         <\/a>                     <\/div>\n<div class=\"explore-card\">                         <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/4560168\/supreme-court-justices-testify-budget-congress\/?itm_source=parsely-api\">                             <\/p>\n<div class=\"explore-thumb-wrap\">                                                                                                                                  <\/div>\n<h3>Supreme Court justices to testify on Hill about budget for first time since 2019: Report<\/h3>\n<p>                         <\/a>                     <\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/section>\n<p>The variety of different rulings tee up a divide the Supreme Court will ultimately need to resolve.<\/p>\n<div class=\"article-paywall\">\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"h-mandatory-detention-policy-stems-from-a-new-use-of-a-1996-law\">Mandatory detention policy stems from a new use of a 1996 law<\/h2>\n<p>The legal dispute over whether the mandatory detention policy is lawful comes down to a provision of federal law enacted by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. <\/p>\n<p>Prior to the 1996 law, which updated the Immigration and Nationality Act, federal law split on its requirements for illegal immigrants, based on whether they had been apprehended at the border or whether they were caught in the interior of the country, to determine if they were eligible for speedy removal. Andrew Arthur, the Center for Immigration Studies\u2019s resident fellow in law and policy, told the <em>Washington Examiner<\/em> the 1996 law changed the standard for who could be deported quickly, specifying that officials were to look at whether a noncitizen had been \u201cadmitted\u201d to the country.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cRather than making a distinction between whether an alien had entered or hadn\u2019t, the distinction that Congress came up with was whether they had been admitted or hadn\u2019t been admitted. So if you entered the United States illegally, you evade inspection, haven\u2019t been admitted, and therefore you are subject to inadmissibility,\u201d Arthur said. <\/p>\n<p>Someone who has been admitted into the country, even if he or she is an illegal immigrant, is not subject to accelerated removal proceedings or mandatory detention and would go through a different set of deportation proceedings.<\/p>\n<p>But courts have found little consensus over what counts as an admission to the United States.<\/p>\n<p>The disagreement from the district and appeals courts stems from whether an illegal immigrant in the interior of the country is seeking admission or whether he or she should be considered as already admitted.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThe argument that most district court judges have bought has been that there is some distinction between an applicant for admission and an alien seeking admission. That Congress intended that distinction because it wanted to make clear that detention only applies to aliens who are at the border or the ports,\u201d Arthur said.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThat\u2019s plainly not correct, because if you read through the rest of that line [in the law], it says an alien seeking admission is not clearly and beyond the doubt entitled to be admitted,\u201d Arthur said. \u201cThat\u2019s really just the standard for deciding whether somebody should be denied admission, not whether somebody should be detained or not detained.\u201d<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"h-appeals-courts-sharply-split-on-the-issue-with-more-rulings-to-come\">Appeals courts sharply split on the issue with more rulings to come <\/h2>\n<p>The three judge panel on the 11th Circuit found by a 2-1 margin that the Trump administration\u2019s \u201cre-interpretation\u201d of the Immigration and Nationality Act to define illegal immigrants in the interior of the country as \u201cseeking admission\u201d into the country was unlawful, instead finding that \u201cno-bond detention generally applies to <a href=\"https:\/\/amzn.to\/3YuVZYV\" >arriving aliens seeking lawful entry<\/a> to the country, and not to aliens who are simply present here.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>U.S. Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, authored the majority, joined by U.S. Circuit Judge Robin Rosenbaum, an appointee of former President Barack Obama. <\/p>\n<p>U.S. Circuit Judge Barbara Lagoa, a Trump appointee, penned a dissent to the ruling, arguing that the majority conceded \u201cthat \u2018applicant for admission\u2019 and \u2018seeking admission,\u2019 on their ordinary meaning, are \u2018synonymous,&#8217;\u201d seemingly siding with the Trump administration\u2019s view, but then spent \u201cfifty pages explaining why the ordinary meaning does not apply.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThe Fifth and Eighth Circuits disagree. So do I,\u201d Lagoa wrote. \u201cI respectfully dissent.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The 11th Circuit\u2019s ruling came roughly a week after the 2nd Circuit became the first appeals court to buck the administration\u2019s mandatory detention policy. The 2nd Circuit\u2019s <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/justice\/4546002\/appeals-court-rejects-trump-migrant-detention-policy-creates-national-split\/\" type=\"link\" id=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/justice\/4546002\/appeals-court-rejects-trump-migrant-detention-policy-creates-national-split\/\">April 28 ruling<\/a> found that the Trump administration\u2019s mandatory detention policy went against federal immigration law and decades of practice.<\/p>\n<p>Two federal appeals courts have sided with the Trump administration, with the <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/justice\/4453999\/lower-courts-undermine-trump-appeals-win-immigrant-detention\/\">5th Circuit<\/a> being the first to do so in February, followed by the <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/justice\/4463554\/8th-circuit-could-trump-win-mandatory-immigration-detention\/\">8th Circuit<\/a> in March. The 7th Circuit offered an evenly split decision over the legality of Trump\u2019s mandatory detention policy in its ruling earlier this week, in which one judge rejected the administration\u2019s view, one judge sided with it, and the other judge neither endorsed nor rejected the policy.<\/p>\n<p>While five judicial circuits have already issued conflicting rulings on Trump\u2019s mandatory detention policy for illegal immigrants, other appeals courts could add to the split with forthcoming rulings on the matter. Earlier this week, three-judge panels on the 1st Circuit and 4th Circuit, respectively, heard arguments in Justice Department appeals of <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/supreme-court-rejects-pennsylvania-gop-election-appeal\/\" title=\"... Rejects Pennsylvania GOP Election Appeal\">lower court decisions<\/a> against the administration\u2019s policy.<\/p>\n<p>The 1st  Circuit panel <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/justice\/4553620\/1st-circuit-may-intensify-judicial-divisions-trump-mandatory-detention-rule\/\" type=\"link\" id=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/justice\/4553620\/1st-circuit-may-intensify-judicial-divisions-trump-mandatory-detention-rule\/\">grilled<\/a> the DOJ lawyers and appeared skeptical of their arguments to allow for mandatory detention of illegal immigrants in the interior of the country. The Monday oral arguments seemed likely to lead to a decision in the coming weeks more in line with the 2nd Circuit and 11th Circuit rulings than the rulings from the 5th Circuit and 8th Circuit.<\/p>\n<p>During arguments on Monday, U.S. Circuit Judge Sandra Lynch, a Clinton appointee, conceded that ultimately, \u201cthe\u00a0Supreme Court\u00a0is going to have to decide this,\u201d and it appears the justices will likely hear a case involving the Trump administration policy at some point during their next term.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"h-mandatory-detention-could-make-its-way-before-the-justices\">Mandatory detention could make its way before the justices<\/h2>\n<p>The Supreme Court concluded its <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/trumps-tps-immigration-crackdown-faces-supreme-court-test\/\" title=\"Trump&#039;s TPS immigration crackdown faces ... test\">final scheduled oral arguments<\/a> for the current term last week, meaning the earliest the justices would hear the case, barring an unusual summertime argument, is in early October when they begin their next term.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThey\u2019re out of time to schedule a hearing this term, which would mean that they would kick it over the next term and just live with the circuit split in the interim,\u201d Arthur said, noting <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/appeals-courts-ftc-reinstatement-sets-up-likely-supreme-court-clash-over-humphreys-executor\/\" title=\"...&#039;s FTC reinstatement sets up likely ... clash over Humphrey&#039;s Executor\">full merits arguments<\/a> in a case before the Supreme Court would have to be months away.<\/p>\n<p>None of the cases where appeals courts have ruled on the mandatory detention policy have been appealed by either side to the Supreme Court, but that could change in the coming months. The issue could also be petitioned on the emergency docket pending a petition for full merits arguments, which could lead the justices to have to make a tough preliminary decision on the matter in the interim.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cIt\u2019s going to be very difficult for them to issue an in-chambers order one way or the other,\u201d Arthur told the <em>Washington Examiner<\/em>. \u201cBecause if they find in favor of the administration, you\u2019re basically going to be changing the old policy. If you find in favor of the aliens, then you\u2019re enjoining the federal government, and when it comes to enjoining the federal government from taking an action that the statute says it must take, the burden is pretty high.\u201d<\/p>\n<p><strong><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/justice\/4553620\/1st-circuit-may-intensify-judicial-divisions-trump-mandatory-detention-rule\/\" type=\"link\" id=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/justice\/4553620\/1st-circuit-may-intensify-judicial-divisions-trump-mandatory-detention-rule\/\">FIRST CIRCUIT COULD INTENSIFY JUDICIAL DIVISIONS OVER TRUMP\u2019S MANDATORY DETENTION POLICY<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>If the Supreme Court takes up the case, it would mark the latest instance of the high court reviewing a key Trump administration policy or action since he returned to office in January 2025.<\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court has already struck down his sweeping tariffs, and has yet to rule on his power to fire independent agency heads, his executive order on birthright citizenship, or his bid to end Temporary Protected Status for Haiti and Syria. The high court\u2019s rulings in the other Trump cases are expected by the end of June.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/article>\n<p><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Trump detention policy split appeals courts; Supreme Court may review<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2638,"featured_media":2600852,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/AP26103430096478.jpg?w=696","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[74152,32275,3634],"class_list":["post-2600851","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","tag-mandatory-detention","tag-supreme-court","tag-trump"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/AP26103430096478.jpg?w=696","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2600851","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2638"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2600851"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2600851\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2600855,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2600851\/revisions\/2600855"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2600852"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2600851"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2600851"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2600851"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}