A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down a policy from the Trump administration that mandated detention for many immigrants facing deportation. The ruling, issued by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, effectively ends the practice of automatically detaining individuals while their deportation cases are pending.

The policy, implemented in 2019, significantly expanded the number of immigrants held in ICE custody. Prior to this, many immigrants with low-level offenses or those deemed less of a flight risk were released on bond or allowed to await their court dates outside of detention facilities. The Trump administration argued that mandatory detention was necessary to ensure that immigrants appeared for their hearings and to deter illegal immigration.

However, the appeals court found that the policy violated federal immigration law, which requires ICE to consider an individual’s “aggravated factors” – such as criminal history or flight risk – before ordering detention. The court stated that the policy disregarded these factors and essentially presumed that all deportable immigrants should be detained, regardless of their circumstances. The decision upheld a lower court ruling from 2020.

Immigration advocates hailed the decision as a victory for due process and a rejection of what they characterized as a harsh and unnecessary policy. They argued that mandatory detention placed an undue burden on immigrants, separated families, and strained already limited resources at ICE detention centers. The government can appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, but for now, ICE is required to assess each individual’s circumstances before ordering detention.

The case highlights ongoing legal challenges to immigration policies and the ongoing debate over the appropriate balance between border security, due process, and the humane treatment of immigrants. This particular policy change significantly impacted the number of individuals held in detention facilities, leading to increased costs and overcrowding, and sparking legal and ethical concerns.