By Nate Raymond
March 25 (Reuters) – A U.S. appeals court on Wednesday endorsed the Trump administration’s policy of subjecting people arrested in its immigration crackdown to mandatory detention without the chance to be released on bond in a ruling that will affect numerous cases in Minnesota and six other states.
The 2-1 decision by a panel of the St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals marked the second time a regional appeals court upheld President Donald Trump’s mass detention policy after hundreds of lower-court judges had declared it unlawful.
The 8th Circuit’s decision will affect seven states within its jurisdiction, including Minnesota. Over 400 lawsuits were filed in Minnesota in January alone by people alleging they were wrongly detained during “Operation Metro Surge,” the U.S. Department of Justice has said.
The Justice Department cited the flood of lawsuits in pushing the 8th Circuit to quickly review the case, which progressed even as the administration wound down the enforcement campaign following the fatal shootings of two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis by immigration agents.
“MASSIVE COURT VICTORY against activist judges and for President Trump’s law and order agenda!” U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi declared in a social media post.
REINTERPRETING IMMIGRATION LAW
Bucking a long-standing interpretation of immigration law, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security last year took the position that non-citizens already residing in the United States, and not just people arriving at the border, qualify as “applicants for admission” subject to mandatory detention.
A judge in Minnesota in October rejected that reading and ordered Mexican national Joaquin Herrera Avila be provided a bond hearing before an immigration judge, leading to the appeal.
U.S. Circuit Judge Bobby Shepherd, writing for Wednesday’s majority, said the text of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 made clear the administration’s interpretation was right.
Both judges in the majority were appointed by Republican presidents, as was U.S. Circuit Judge Ralph Erickson, a Trump appointee who in a dissenting opinion noted that five prior presidential administrations had interpreted the law as only applying to people arriving at the border.
“This conduct is something courts ought to consider,” he said.
Michael Tan, a lawyer for Herrera Avila at the American Civil Liberties Union, said they were assessing what next steps to take in the litigation.
Trump’s administration has been appealing other rulings rejecting its policy. On February 6, it convinced the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which became the first appellate court to uphold it.
(Reporting by Nate Raymond in BostonEditing by Bill Berkrot)
Comments