U.S. District Judge Raag Singhal, appointed by President Donald Trump, has reversed his previous stance on the Trump administration’s policy of indefinitely detaining certain immigrants. Singhal, who had previously supported the government’s interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), is now following the precedent set by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which rejected the government’s interpretation.
Background on the Detention Policy
The policy, implemented by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in July 2025, allows for the detention of immigrants “for the duration of their removal proceedings,” unless granted parole. This policy has led to indefinite detentions, a stance the Trump administration argued was supported by the INA, specifically 8 U.S.C. §1225(b), which traditionally applied to immigrants stopped at the border. The administration extended this interpretation to immigrants already in the U.S., claiming they should not be released from ICE custody.
Court Rulings Against ICE’s Position
Since the policy’s implementation, many district courts, including those with Trump-appointed judges, have rejected the government’s interpretation. 425 district court judges have ruled against ICE’s claims, instead favoring the argument that 8 U.S.C. §1226(a), which applies to immigrants already present in the U.S., should govern detention decisions.
Judge Singhal had previously ruled against habeas petitions filed by detained immigrants, upholding the government’s position. However, following a decision by the 11th Circuit Court, Singhal is now bound by the appellate court’s precedent.
The 11th Circuit ruled that immigrants detained in the U.S., not at the border, are entitled to bond hearings under 8 U.S.C. §1226.
Judge’s Order and Acknowledgement of Precedent
In a terse order issued on Friday, Singhal acknowledged the change in his stance, citing the principle of vertical precedent—following the rulings of higher courts. Despite his personal preference for the dissenting opinion in the 11th Circuit’s 2-1 ruling, Singhal stated that as a district court judge, he is required to follow the majority opinion.
Singhal concluded that, under the 11th Circuit’s ruling, the immigrant in question was being unlawfully detained and was entitled to a bond hearing, in line with the precedent set by the appellate court.
Implications for Future Cases
This shift in Singhal’s position marks a significant reversal in his approach to immigration detention cases and reflects the broader trend of district courts rejecting the Trump administration’s expanded interpretation of immigration detention authority. The decision reinforces the role of appellate courts in shaping the legal landscape for immigration policy.
