Trump administration defends nationwide no-bond immigration detention policy

SEATTLE (CN) — The Trump administration on Wednesday asked the Ninth Circuit to overturn a ruling blocking immigration officers from detaining certain noncitizens without the possibility of a bond hearing.

At issue is the interpretation of a provision of federal immigration law requiring mandatory detention for “applicants for admission” and whether that applies to those who entered the country years ago and were later arrested by immigration agents.

“Petitioner’s contrary interpretation of the statute is not only at war with the statute’s text, but it would reimpose the same perverse regime that Congress sought to discard when it adopted [the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act] in 1996,” said Benjamin Hayes, attorney with the Department of Justice.

Ramon Rodriguez Vazquez, a Washington resident since 2009, was arrested by immigration agents last February despite having no criminal history. He was detained at the Northwest ICE Processing Center, and a Tacoma Immigration Court judge denied his request for a bond hearing.

Rodriguez sued the Tacoma Immigration Court, the Department of Homeland Security and other immigration agencies and officials in federal court last March.

U.S. District Judge Tiffany Cartwright, a Joe Biden appointee, determined the practice was likely illegal and certified two classes of noncitizens: those seeking a declaration that the Tacoma immigration judges’ bond denial policy violated the Immigration and Nationality Act and those seeking a declaration that prolonged detention without appeal violates the due process clause.

While the case progressed, the Trump administration adopted the Tacoma Immigration Court’s interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act’s detention provision and, over the summer, instructed ICE officers across the country that all noncitizens — regardless of their ties to the community or lack of criminal record — are no longer eligible for bond hearings before an immigration judge.

In September, Cartwright ruled in favor of Rodriguez, noting every other federal District Court considering the same issue has concluded that the Trump administration’s position “belies the statutory text of the INA, canons of statutory interpretation, legislative history, and longstanding agency practice.”

Before the appeals court, the Trump administration argued that any interpretation of the statute contrary to its own defies Congress’ intent, describing Rodriguez’s interpretation as a “ regime in which aliens who intentionally violate law are given preferential treatment in the form in this case of bond hearings, while those who enter the United States in accordance with law presenting at a port of entry are subject to mandatory detention.”

The government argued that federal immigration law mandates detention of any “applicant for admission” who can’t show they are entitled to be admitted.

But U.S. Circuit Judge Margaret McKeown, a Bill Clinton appointee, noted at least three Supreme Court decisions use the same language surrounding admissions as Rodriguez.

“The difficulty is that we have history going back to 1958, where they say, ‘Well, the laws have always distinguished between those seeking admission — that’s the key phrase here — and those that are already here, whether they be here lawfully or unlawfully.’ Then we have 30 years of practice where that’s always been the case up until just now,” McKeown said.

Hayes argued “applicants for admission” is a subset of “those seeking admission,” and therefore, anyone who arrives or is present in the United States is an applicant for admission.

Rodriguez and the class of noncitizens pushed back on that position.

“Defendants’ new interpretation is contrary to the statutory scheme, congressional understanding of the statutes Congress enacted and 30 years of practice,” argued Matt Adams with the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project.

Adams argued “applicant for admission” necessarily requires that one be actively seeking entry into the United States.

“Under the government’s interpretation, they’re nullifying entire provisions, entire sub-paragraphs of the statute,” Adams said. “They are also then ignoring and rendering superfluous the term ‘seek admission’ within the very statute which they purport to apply.”

Plus, Adams argued that when Congress enacted the immigration provisions in 1996, it differentiated between those already in the country and those seeking new entry.

“Congress made no determination that it would take a drastic change and strip those individuals of their right to a determination, an individualized determination of whether that person should be uprooted from their family, from their homes, from their employment, for months on end while they go through the removal process,” Adams said.

After the lower court granted Rodriguez’s motion for a preliminary injunction, he was denied bond and remained in detention for three months until his application for relief was denied. Instead of remaining in detention while exercising his right to file an administrative appeal, Rodriguez opted for voluntary departure.

The Ninth Circuit panel, which also included U.S. Circuit Judges Carlos Bea, a George W. Bush appointee, and Daniel Bress, a Donald Trump appointee, did not indicate when it would rule.