WASHINGTON — The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday rejected the Trump administration’s effort to require detention without bond for a broad class of immigrants, warning that the policy raises serious due-process concerns and evokes the history of Japanese American internment during World War II. The 2-1 ruling found that a provision of the 1996 immigration law does not authorize the government to impose mandatory detention on people who have lived in the United States for years while their immigration cases proceed. Judge Nicole Berner, joined by Judge Barbara Keenan, wrote that the government’s position would amount to mass detention of marginalized people without the procedural protections required by law. “Mass detention of marginalized individuals without due process harkens back to some of the darkest moments in our country’s history,” Berner wrote. She described Japanese internment as a “historical stain” and said the earlier detentions were narrower than the system the government is now asking courts to approve. The decision is the ninth consecutive defeat for Immigration and Customs Enforcement in federal appellate courts over the policy. Of the 11 federal circuits that have considered the issue, nine have rejected the administration’s interpretation of the law. The Supreme Court is widely expected to take up the dispute during its next term. ICE changed its interpretation in July 2025, arguing that immigrants living in the country’s interior — including people who have been in the United States for decades — could be treated as “seeking admission.” Under that theory, they could be detained without the opportunity to seek release on bond for the duration of potentially lengthy removal proceedings. The policy has triggered hundreds of emergency lawsuits, according to court tallies cited in the case. More than 460 federal judges have rejected the administration’s position, while slightly more than 50 have agreed with it. The rulings have crossed ideological and partisan lines, including decisions by judges appointed by presidents of both parties and by President Trump. The administration has continued enforcing the policy despite the string of losses. The resulting litigation has affected tens of thousands of people and produced friction between ICE and the Justice Department, as courts confront a steady stream of challenges to detention decisions. Judge Allison Rushing, a Trump appointee, dissented. She argued that previous administrations’ decisions not to use the full authority claimed by ICE did not establish that the current administration’s interpretation was unlawful. Rushing also accused the majority of allowing its concerns about the consequences of denying bond to influence its reading of the statute. Supporters of the administration’s position argue that people who avoided detection when entering the country should not receive greater procedural protections than people who present themselves to immigration authorities shortly after crossing the border. Most courts to consider the question, however, have concluded that Congress did not clearly authorize the nation’s largest mass-detention policy through ambiguous language in a decades-old law. Those courts have also pointed to the Laken Riley Act, which specifically requires detention without bond for certain immigrants charged with or convicted of specified crimes. In their view, treating the 1996 law as a blanket detention mandate would make that later law’s more targeted requirements largely unnecessary. The Fourth Circuit’s decision does not end the policy immediately. Its likely next major test will come before the Supreme Court, where the justices will decide whether the administration can use the 1996 statute to deny bond hearings to immigrants who have long lived in the United States.