In a 3-0 ruling, court says Trump administration misread a decades-old immigration law to justify mandatory detention.

A United States federal appeals court has rejected the Trump administration’s practice of subjecting most people arrested in its immigration crackdown to mandatory detention without the opportunity to seek release on bond.

In a 3-0 ruling on Tuesday, a panel of the New York-based US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said the administration relied on a novel but incorrect interpretation of a decades-old immigration law to justify the policy.

Writing for the panel, US Circuit Judge Joseph F Bianco, a Trump appointee, warned that the government’s reading “would send a seismic shock through our immigration detention system and society”, straining already overcrowded facilities, separating families and disrupting communities.

Lawyers for the Trump administration say the mandatory detention policy is legal under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, passed in 1996.

But Bianco said the government had made “an attempt to muddy” the law’s “textually clear waters”, arguing that the administration’s interpretation “defies the statute’s context, structure, history, and purpose” and contradicts “longstanding executive branch practice”.

Under the Trump administration policy, the Department of Homeland Security last year took the position that non-citizens already living in the US, not just those arriving at the border, qualify as “applicants for admission” and are subject to mandatory detention.

Under federal immigration law, “applicants for admission” to the US are detained while their cases proceed in immigration courts and are ineligible for bond hearings.

The Department of Homeland Security has been denying bond hearings to immigrants arrested across the country, including those who have been living in the US for years without any criminal history, the Associated Press (AP) news agency reports.

That is a departure from the practice under previous US administrations, when most non-citizens with no criminal record who were arrested away from the border were given the opportunity to request a bond while their cases moved through immigration court, according to AP.

In such cases, bonds were often granted to people who were deemed not to be flight risks, and mandatory detention was limited to those who had just entered the country.

Amy Belsher, director of immigrants rights’ litigation at the New York Civil Liberties Union, said the appeals court ruling affirmed “that the Trump administration’s policy of detaining immigrants without any process is unlawful and cannot stand”.

“The government cannot mandatorily detain millions of noncitizens, many of whom have lived here for decades, without an opportunity to seek release. It defies the Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and basic human decency,” Belsher said in a statement.

Conflicting rulings set stage for Supreme Court review

The New York court’s decision comes after two other appeals courts ruled in favour of the Trump administration’s policy.

Acknowledging the opposing rulings, Judge Bianco said the panel was parting ways with them and instead aligning with more than 370 lower-court judges nationwide who have rejected the administration’s position as a misreading of the law.

The split among the courts increases the likelihood that the US Supreme Court will weigh in.

The latest ruling also upheld an order by a New York judge that led to the release of Brazilian national Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha, who was arrested by immigration officials last year while driving to work after living in the US for more than 20 years.

“The court was right to conclude the Trump administration can’t just ⁠reinterpret the law at its own whim,” Michael Tan, a lawyer for Barbosa at the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement.

The Department of Justice, which is defending the mandatory detention policy in court, did not respond to a request for comment.

Gird your loins, because “The Devil Wears Prada 2” has finally been unveiled to members of the film press and first reactions are trickling in for highly-anticipated sequel. The movie, which marks the return of Meryl Streep to her Oscar-nominated role of fashion magazine powerhouse Miranda Priestly, is being called “charming and fun” and destined to be a “massive hit.”

Entertainment journalist Daniel Baptista wrote on X that “The Devil Wears Prada 2” is a “fun and fierce sequel” that ushers a natural return for stars Streep and Anne Hathaway, adding: “It feels familiar in the best way, timely in the right ways, and is well worth the wait.”

Variety‘s senior artisans editor Jazz Tangcay echoed the praise, writing on X that “‘The Devil Wears Prada 2’ is “phenomenal” and “the perfect sequel that exceeded all expectations. Aline Brosh McKenna’s script is sharp and witty. We’ll be quoting this for years to come. Meryl Streep, Anne Hathaway and Emily Blunt are still great. Stunning costumes, and that soundtrack slaps hard.”

THR senior editor Alex Werpin called the sequel a “biting media parody wrapped up in high fashion,” adding: “Every journalist who sees it will cringe from recognition.”

“‘The Devil Wears Prada 2’ has no right to be as good as it is,” adds Awards Watch’s Erik Anderson. “Just the right kind and number of callbacks and earned nostalgia, Anne Hathaway continues to be our most vibrant star. It’s funny and deeper, and we get the return of ‘Vogue.’”

Meryl Streep returns for “The Devil Wears Prada 2” alongside original cast members Anne Hathaway, Emily Blunt and Stanley Tucci, plus director David Frankel and screenwriter Aline Brosh McKenna. New cast members include Kenneth Branagh, who is set to play Miranda Priestly’s husband, as well as Simone Ashley, Lucy Liu, Justin Theroux, B.J. Novak and more.

While plot details for the sequel have remained under wraps, trailers for “The Devil Wears Prada 2” have revealed that Hathaway’s Andy Sachs returns to Runway to be the magazine’s features editor. In the original, which opened in 2006 and grossed $326 million worldwide, Hathaway’s Andy is an aspiring journalist who becomes the personal assistant to Streep’s Miranda.

The film’s popularity has only skyrocketed in the 20 years since its release, so much so that filming “The Devil Wears Prada 2” on the streets of New York City proved difficult for the cast and crew as fans and paparazzi stormed the shot to follow their every move. Streep told Harper’s Bazaar that she “unnerved” while the filming because of what a sensation it caused.

“Even though we were aware of the impact of the first film two decades ago, I think none of us were prepared for the ambush of both goodwill and avid attention that engulfed us,” Streep said. “We needed police barriers and crowd control. Buses of fans turned up, and paparazzi swarmed and in one case kept jumping in front of the camera and the shot and got in a kerfuffle with crew. Annie kept her cool, but I was unnerved.”

“The Devil Wears Prada 2” kicks off this year’s summer movie season when it opens in theaters May 1 from 20th Century Studios and Disney.

As Britain publicly distances itself from President Donald Trump’s Iran pressure campaign, King Charles III’s upcoming visit is shaping up as more than royal pageantry. 

It may be Britain’s most important diplomatic tool for preventing growing policy fractures with Washington from becoming something deeper.

“The British monarch has historically had huge importance in terms of creating personal diplomacy to smooth over ruffled feathers,” Alan Mendoza, executive director of the Henry Jackson Society, a London-based think tank, told Fox News Digital, arguing that the crown has often served as Britain’s strategic stabilizer during moments of political strain.

Mendoza said Charles could play a critical role at a moment when Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government and Trump appear increasingly divided over Iran, defense strategy and the future shape of the transatlantic alliance.

TRUMP SLAMS STARMER AS ‘NOT WINSTON CHURCHILL’ FOR REFUSAL TO BACK IRAN STRIKES

“King Charles has the opportunity, through personal diplomacy, to create a new beginning with Donald Trump,” Mendoza said.

Britain’s balancing act became clearer Monday when Deputy Minister Stephen Doughty publicly rejected U.S. blockade tactics against Iran, while still backing Washington’s broader effort to secure maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.

“While the U.K. doesn’t support the U.S. blockade, it supports working with the United States and others to reopen the Strait of Hormuz,” Doughty said ahead of a U.N. Security Council meeting, according to The Associated Press, warning Tehran cannot be allowed to hold “the rest of the world to ransom.”

The split underscores London’s effort to support U.S. security goals without fully endorsing Trump’s “economic fury” strategy, which aims to strangle Iran’s economic lifelines through aggressive maritime pressure.

That policy divergence has intensified scrutiny over whether Charles’ visit is now functioning as a diplomatic pressure valve.

A White House spokesperson emphasized the visit as a sign of enduring personal rapport between the president and the monarch. “President Trump has always had great respect for King Charles, and their relationship was further strengthened by the president’s historic trip to the United Kingdom last year,” White House spokesperson Anna Kelly told Fox News Digital. “The president enjoyed welcoming their majesties to the White House, and he looks forward to more special events throughout the week.”

AS AIRSTRIKES RAIN DOWN ON THE IRANIAN REGIME, CAN A FRACTURED OPPOSITION UNITE TO LEAD IF IT FALLS?

Mendoza pointed to Queen Elizabeth II’s past interventions as evidence that the monarchy can sometimes succeed where elected leaders cannot.

He cited Elizabeth’s historic role in easing tensions with Ireland and described royal diplomacy as uniquely positioned to create trust at the personal level.

“People often wonder why the British monarchy still exists in the 21st century,” Mendoza said. “This is why.”

Still, Mendoza was careful not to overstate the king’s role.

Charles, he said, is unlikely to directly influence specific policies on Iran, NATO or military cooperation. Instead, his greatest value lies in shaping what Mendoza called the “general mood music” around Trump’s willingness to engage.

“It’s more a question of general mood music, which could make the president more receptive to interesting solutions,” Mendoza said.

That distinction may prove crucial.

Rather than forcing policy alignment, Charles could help preserve the broader strategic atmosphere needed to keep Washington and London functioning as close allies even while their elected governments disagree.

KING CHARLES SENDS PERSONAL MESSAGE OF CONGRATULATIONS TO TRUMP ON SWEARING-IN

For Britain, that may be particularly important as outside analysts warn that the “special relationship” is under mounting structural strain.

In an analysis published Monday, Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow Matthias Matthijs argued that while the royal visit offers “spectacle and ritual,” it is unlikely to reverse what he described as the deeper unraveling of U.S.–U.K. ties.

Matthijs pointed to Trump’s repeated criticisms of Starmer about immigration, energy policy and Britain’s posture toward the U.S.-Israeli confrontation with Iran, suggesting Charles may now be doing much of the diplomatic “heavy lifting” required to preserve British access to Trump.

Meanwhile, constitutional scholars in Britain have also raised concerns.

Writing for the U.K. Constitutional Law Association earlier in April, Francesca Jackson warned that using the monarch as a diplomatic instrument during periods of sharp political volatility could expose the Crown to political backlash or “potential embarrassment,” especially if Charles is perceived as caught between Trump and Starmer.

That risk reflects the broader stakes.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

If Trump embraces Charles while continuing to criticize Starmer, the visit could preserve royal rapport while underscoring political dysfunction, effectively creating a parallel diplomatic lane between Washington and the British Crown.

But for now, Mendoza argues, the monarchy’s purpose is not governance, but access to the king, which may still have a chance to keep the relationship from fracturing beyond repair.

Fox News Digital reached out to Prime Minister Starmer’s office for comment.