A federal appeals court has ruled that the Trump administration cannot deny immigrants detained within the United States a chance to be released on bond. The San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision on Thursday in a two-to-one vote, with a judge appointed by President Donald Trump joining the majority.

This ruling exacerbates a division among federal appellate courts regarding the administration's mandatory detention policy. While four other federal appeals courts have previously rejected the policy, the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans and the Eighth Circuit in St. Louis have sided with the Trump administration. This growing disagreement among circuits makes it more likely that the U.S. Supreme Court will eventually consider the issue, as the administration had requested last month.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security stated it "strongly disagrees with the Ninth Circuit panel and is confident in its legal position regarding mandatory detention." The department added that President Donald Trump and Secretary Markwayne Mullin "are now enforcing the law as it was actually written to keep America safe."

Under previous administrations, most noncitizens apprehended within the U.S. who did not have a criminal record were typically allowed to seek a bond hearing while their immigration cases were pending. Mandatory detention was generally reserved for individuals apprehended at the border. However, in July of the previous year, immigration officials issued guidance that expanded mandatory detention to immigrants located in the U.S. interior.

This policy shift, part of the Trump administration's broader deportation efforts, led to numerous federal lawsuits filed by immigrants seeking release from custody. Some federal judges who ordered bond hearings had criticized the administration for repeatedly disregarding their directives.

The Trump administration has contended that Congress amended immigration law in 1996 to permit mandatory detention for individuals apprehended beyond the border, a provision that prior administrations did not enforce.

Writing for the majority in Thursday's decision, 9th U.S. Circuit Judge Daniel Bress rejected this interpretation. Bress, a Trump appointee, wrote that "although no reading of the complicated and interrelated textual provisions at issue here is without some shortcomings, the historical understanding of the statute is the better one." He was joined in his opinion by Judge M. Margaret McKeown, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton.