Federal judge rebukes Trump admin’s ICE detention policies, draws comparison to World War II internment camps: ‘Harkens back to some of the darkest moments in our country’s history’

A federal appeals court has compared the Trump administration‘s sweeping immigration detention policy to some of the darkest chapters in U.S. history, including the World War II internment of Japanese Americans, ruling that longtime undocumented immigrants are entitled to bond hearings while fighting deportation.

In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit rejected the administration’s argument that millions of immigrants who entered the country unlawfully can be held in mandatory detention without access to bond hearings.

Writing for the majority, Judge Nicole Berner, a Joe Biden appointee, said the government’s interpretation of federal immigration law raised profound concerns because it could subject millions of people living in the U.S. to detention without bond. Judge Barbara Milano Keenan, an Obama appointee, joined the opinion, while Judge Allison Jones Rushing, a Donald Trump appointee, dissented.

“Mass detention of marginalized individuals without due process harkens back to some of the darkest moments in our country’s history,” Berner wrote. She pointed to the detention of Chinese immigrants under the Geary Act in the 1890s and the wartime internment of Japanese Americans, when nearly 120,000 people were sent to internment camps.

“The stain of these detentions on our nation — and the judiciary’s abdication of its obligation to protect basic freedoms — continues to haunt us,” the opinion said.

The court said those historical detention programs were “limited in scope” compared with the detention authority the government now claims Congress created through a disputed interpretation of immigration law.

“Those shameful and abhorrent past detentions were limited in scope in comparison to the mandatory detention that the Government urges us today to find that Congress established thirty years ago in an ambiguously worded statutory provision. We decline to do so,” Berner wrote.

DHS response

A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson told Newsweek that the department strongly disagreed with the ruling and remained confident in its legal position on mandatory detention.

“That is why DHS recently sought Supreme Court review of a similar decision from the Sixth Circuit,” the spokesperson said. “Opinions from the Board of Immigration Appeals and two other federal courts of appeals reflect the soundness of DHS’s legal position.”

“This legal position was the nail in the coffin for Biden’s catch and release policies. That is why the left and their activist proxies on the judiciary are resisting it so vigorously. President Trump and Secretary Mullin are now enforcing the law as it was actually written to keep America safe,” the spokesperson told Newsweek. “As our record in the U.S. Supreme Court demonstrates, the law is on our side.”

What the case is about

The case stems from a 2025 policy shift by the Trump administration that sought to place many undocumented immigrants under a section of federal immigration law requiring detention during removal proceedings.

Before the change, immigrants already living in the U.S. generally fell under a separate provision that allowed them to seek release through immigration bond hearings.

The plaintiffs, Oscar Enrique Lopez Garcia and Juan Jose Rivera, had each lived in the U.S. for decades before being detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in 2025. The government did not argue that either man posed a danger to the community or a flight risk, but both were initially denied bond hearings under the administration’s new interpretation.

The men were arrested in the Washington, D.C., area in October 2025 and held at a Virginia ICE facility without bond hearings before later being released after immigration judges found they were neither a danger to the community nor a flight risk, according to The Gateway Pundit.

Lopez Garcia is married with two U.S.-citizen children, while Rivera has no criminal record.

The Fourth Circuit concluded that immigrants in their position must be detained under a provision that permits bond hearings rather than one requiring mandatory detention. The court therefore upheld lower-court rulings ordering that the men be given an opportunity to seek release.

Growing split among appeals courts

The decision comes as federal courts nationwide grapple with the Trump administration’s detention policy. The dispute has become one of the most significant immigration battles in the federal courts because of its potential impact on millions of immigrants who entered the U.S. without inspection and remain in the country.

The Fourth Circuit noted that the First, Second, Third, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Circuits have largely reached the same conclusion, while the Fifth and Eighth Circuits have backed the administration’s interpretation. The circuit split now stands at 9-2 against the administration.

The administration has argued that immigrants who entered unlawfully remain “applicants for admission” under federal immigration law and therefore fall under mandatory detention provisions. The challengers contend Congress never intended those provisions to apply to people who have spent years or decades living in the U.S.

“The policy at the heart of these cases reflects a radical interpretation of the law and marks a major shift from how the government has applied the law over the past several decades,” Jennifer Koh, a law professor at Pepperdine University, previously told Newsweek. “If upheld, it would give immigration authorities the power to incarcerate people based solely on the fact that they entered the country unlawfully — no matter how long they have lived in the country or what their ties are. It provides the government with a significant tool in its mass deportation efforts. It also has serious implications for how the courts understand due process for noncitizens.”

Dissent accuses majority of injecting policy views

In dissent, Judge Allison Jones Rushing argued that the statutory text clearly supports the administration’s position and that the majority allowed policy concerns to influence its interpretation.

Rushing said the majority focused on the “moral implications” of detention and improperly compared immigration detention with internment camps rather than adhering to the language Congress enacted.

She argued that immigrants present in the country without lawful admission are deemed “applicants for admission” under federal law and therefore can be held under the mandatory detention provision at issue.

Rushing also wrote that the Trump administration is not prohibited from using its full enforcement authority simply because previous administrations declined to do so. The majority’s “strong views about what it considers the ‘moral implications’ of no-bond detention do not rewrite the law,” she wrote.

For now, the ruling represents another significant setback for the Trump administration’s effort to expand mandatory detention authority. The broader legal fight continues and could eventually lead to a Supreme Court showdown over the scope of ICE detention powers.