The 7th Circuit split over the Trump administration’s bid to detain most people ICE seeks to deport left the court deadlocked, widening a patchwork of rulings that could force the Supreme Court to step in.

A three-judge panel in the Chicago-based 7th Circuit ended in a tie over whether a 1996 law requires mandatory detention for people ICE seeks to remove without a bond hearing. The panel fractured in several directions: Judge John Lee rejected the administration’s broad mandatory-detention theory, Judge Thomas Kirsch dissented, and Judge Doris Pryor declined to join the key mandatory-detention portion of Lee’s opinion. That deadlock deepens an already fractured federal landscape and raises the odds that the question will reach the high court quickly.

The core dispute traces back to a 1996 statute written to speed up removals of people who recently crossed the border. For years administrations of both parties applied a mandatory-detention rule to newly arrived migrants while using a different process for people living in the interior. The Trump administration is pressing a novel reading that would treat most people ICE targets for deportation as “applicants for admission,” which would trigger detention without a bond hearing.

ICE formally adopted that broader interpretation in July, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed it in September, setting a national enforcement posture for the executive-branch immigration courts. Courts around the country have reacted differently, producing a circuit-by-circuit patchwork rather than a single, nationwide rule. That inconsistency matters because detention rules determine whether someone is held or can seek release on bond while their removal case proceeds.

Judge Lee, a Biden appointee, argued the administration’s reading stretches the 1996 law beyond what Congress plausibly intended, especially given the scale at issue. As stated by Judge Lee in the 7th Circuit opinion, he argued:

“It is unreasonable to think that Congress in 1996 intended to subject millions of noncitizens to mandatory detention in the oblique, off-handed fashion that [Trump administration officials] claim,”

Lee noted that no prior administration had construed the statute to authorize mass detention on this scale, and he warned about consequences if courts accept the administration’s claim. Kirsch, a Trump appointee, dissented from Lee’s narrower reading, while Pryor declined to sign onto the mandatory-detention holding, producing the deadlock rather than a clear win for either side.

The split among appeals courts is already stark. The administration prevailed in 2-1 rulings in the Fifth and Eighth Circuits, while the Second Circuit rejected the broader reading unanimously. Dozens of district judges have weighed in as well, and the count of opposing rulings far outnumbers supporting ones at the district level. That rising discrepancy shows how a single agency policy can produce very different results depending on geography.

The Eighth Circuit’s decision was framed as a clear win for detention without bond in a case involving Joaquin Herrera Avila, a Mexican national arrested in Minneapolis and held without bond after failing to show authorization to be in the United States. Supporters of the broader detention rule seized on that outcome as evidence the statute can be read to allow detention without bond for many migrants ICE places in removal proceedings.

Attorney General Pam Bondi praised the Eighth Circuit ruling in blunt terms, arguing it pushed back against judicial resistance. She said:

“Massive court victory against activist judges and for President Trump’s law and order agenda,”

“The Eighth Circuit has held that illegal aliens can be detained without bond, following a similar ruling from the Fifth Circuit last month. The law is very clear, but Democrats and activist judges haven’t wanted to enforce it. This administration will,”

Still, the tide of federal decisions is mixed: one appellate court after another has been asked to weigh in, and many district courts have rejected the administration’s position. A recent count found 425 federal district judges had rejected the broader detention interpretation, compared with 49 who sided with the administration. Those raw numbers underline how uneven enforcement has become.

Judges at oral argument have signaled an obvious consequence: the Supreme Court will likely have to resolve the conflict. Judge Sandra Lynch put it plainly during a First Circuit argument: “The Supreme Court’s going to have to decide this,” and that seems inevitable if circuits continue to divide. A national immigration system cannot function well when detention policy shifts at circuit borders.

The splintered judicial landscape imposes real costs: agencies face uncertainty, enforcement priorities wobble, and taxpayers pay for extended litigation and inconsistent outcomes. If Congress wanted a single rule for border arrivals and the interior, it can say so clearly. Until then, courts will keep shaping detention policy, and the fight will linger until the justices provide a final answer.