A divided panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday, July 30, rejected the Trump administration’s bid to make thousands of immigrants who are arrested far from the border automatically ineligible for bond hearings. The 2-1 ruling means that most non-citizens picked up in the U.S. interior will still be able to ask an immigration judge for release while their removal cases proceed, instead of facing mandatory detention that can stretch for months or years. The decision is the latest in a series of courtroom setbacks for the administration’s aggressive enforcement agenda. Government lawyers argued that a 1996 change to the Immigration and Nationality Act requires mandatory lock-up of anyone arrested after crossing the border—even if the arrest comes years later—but the majority said Congress never intended to eliminate judges’ discretion so broadly. The panel also noted the crushing backlog in immigration courts, which now tops 4 million cases, making prolonged detention especially burdensome. For employers that routinely sponsor foreign talent, the ruling removes a looming threat that valued workers who fall out of status could be held without bond while pursuing relief. Human-resources departments should, however, continue to monitor the case; the administration is almost certain to seek en banc review and possibly Supreme Court intervention. If the government ultimately prevails, companies could see key staff sidelined for extended periods, disrupting projects and increasing compliance costs. Practically, the ruling also underscores the importance of maintaining valid status and promptly responding to any notices from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Counsel may advise employees to carry evidence of status—such as approval notices and I-94 records—to minimize the risk of wrongful arrest and detention. Firms with large mobile workforces should review crisis-management protocols to ensure they can locate and support personnel who are detained. Although limited to the nine Western states under the 9th Circuit’s jurisdiction, the opinion widens an existing split with the 5th Circuit, increasing the chance that the Supreme Court will eventually decide the issue. Until then, mobility managers should factor regional differences into relocation planning and prepare for possible policy whiplash if higher courts reverse course.
Source: AP News
