The legal battles surrounding President Donald Trump’s policies have continued to mount. When the president returned for his second term and resumed office on Jan. 20, 2025, he signed about 143 executive orders invoking broad emergency powers.
The number was higher than that of any other president within the first 100 days of office. He issued several orders to overhaul immigration in the United States, focusing on restricting asylum and expanding mass deportation policies.
While immigration policies have polarized the country and kept the spotlight on the Trump administration, they have also led to a series of legal disputes involving Trump.
According to Al Jazeera, a U.S. federal appeals court has dismissed a policy by the Donald Trump administration that required most individuals arrested during its immigration crackdown to be held in mandatory detention without the chance to request release on bond.
View this post on Instagram
In a unanimous 3-0 decision issued Tuesday, a panel of the New York-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled that the administration relied on a recent but flawed interpretation of an older immigration law to justify the policy.
U.S. Circuit Judge Joseph F. Bianco raised concerns that the current interpretation “would send a seismic shock through our immigration detention system and society,” potentially separating families and overcrowding detention centers across the country.
The Trump-appointed judge clarified his ruling, while lawyers representing the administration claimed the mandatory detention rule was permitted under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act.
However, Bianco said the government appeared to present a “muddy” interpretation of the issue, arguing that the policy contradicted the statute’s context, structure, history, purpose and decades of executive practice.
According to sources, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRAIRA) made immigration laws in the U.S. stricter by including stronger penalties for undocumented immigrants who commit crimes while being in the country and continue to stay for an extended period.
Under the act, individuals classified as unlawfully present may face penalties for certain immigration violations and criminal offenses. The law requires individuals unlawfully present for more than 180 days but less than one year to leave the country and remain outside the country for three years, unless they receive a waiver.
Those who stay unlawfully for one year or longer must remain outside the U.S. for ten years unless they are granted a waiver. If they reenter the country without such permission, they must wait ten years before becoming eligible to apply for a waiver.
Furthermore, under the policy, the Department of Homeland Security treated not only people arriving at the border but also immigrants already living in the U.S. as “applicants for admission.”
This allowed immigrants to be held in detention centers without the opportunity to request release on bond while their cases were pending.
According to The Associated Press, the policy denied bond hearings to immigrants in the U.S., including some without criminal records. This was a major change from earlier policies, under which most in similar situations could request a bond and were often released if they were not considered a threat.
Consequently, Amy Belsher from the New York Civil Liberties Union said the court’s decision confirms detaining immigrants without due process is illegal and claimed the Trump administration should not be allowed to detain millions without a chance to appeal for release.
“The government cannot mandatorily detain millions of noncitizens, many of whom have lived here for decades, without an opportunity to seek release. It defies the Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and basic human decency.” Belsher said in a statement.
View this post on Instagram
Last year in June, when Trump’s mass deportation policies were receiving a series of mixed reactions with a lot of people condemning them and accusing Republicans of turning the country toward an authoritarian governance, several cases of enforced disappearances also came to notice.
Human Rights First states that an enforced disappearance happens when an individual vanishes without prior notice, possibly abducted or detained by state agents, and the state refuses to reveal the person’s whereabouts, thereby depriving liberty. These tactics place the person outside the protection of the designated law.
