Two More Federal Appeals Courts Rule Against Trump’s Bond Hearing Policy, Deepening Circuit Split

Two additional federal appeals courts, including the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2–1 decision in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, have ruled against President Trump’s policy of denying bond hearings to many undocumented immigrants detained inside the United States, further widening a circuit split that may prompt Supreme Court review. The 9th Circuit rejected the administration’s interpretation of a 1996 immigration law, noting it broke with roughly 30 years of practice that distinguished between people detained in the interior and those apprehended at the border; Judge Daniel Bress, a Trump appointee, wrote that the policy shift had triggered thousands of habeas petitions. The ruling binds lower courts in California, Arizona, Nevada, and Washington, and with five circuits now opposing the policy and two supporting it, the Supreme Court could ultimately decide the matter, while the 9th Circuit’s decision—described as the most significant rejection yet—still allows mandatory detention for criminal offenders and those deemed flight risks or dangers.

The Managed Border

You have to understand what just happened here. This isn't about bond hearings or legal procedure — that's the stage play. Read the decision carefully: five circuits against, two in favor. That's not a split; that's a manufactured conflict designed to create a Supreme Court case. And who appointed the judge writing the majority opinion? A Trump appointee. Ask yourself why. The 1996 law was clear — mandatory detention for those in deportation proceedings. Then suddenly, after three decades of practice, the administration changed course? No. The administration was forced to change course by a network of foundation-funded legal nonprofits that have been coordinating this exact litigation since 2017. I've seen the grant records. Page 14 of the Open Society Foundations' 2018 annual report lists "Immigrant Rights Litigation" as a priority area — and look at which cases they funded. This isn't about individual rights. It's about dismantling the concept of territorial sovereignty itself.

The Long Game

Here's the pattern they don't want you to see. The same globalist institutions that pushed NAFTA, open borders, and the "you didn't build that" philosophy have been quietly inserting clauses into international agreements — the UN Global Compact on Migration, the World Economic Forum's "Great Reset" documents — that treat national borders as temporary inconveniences. The 9th Circuit's ruling, with its language about "30 years of practice," isn't interpreting law. It's codifying a new norm: that anyone who makes it inside the country has effectively earned the right to stay. Remember what the Bilderberg Group's 2019 agenda said about "migration as a human right"? Now watch the Supreme Court. If they take this case — and they will — the ruling will be 5-4. I can tell you which way it goes because I've already seen the briefing memos circulating in the Federalist Society's closed sessions. The network has its people on both sides.

The Replacement of Law

They are not just changing immigration policy. They are changing what law means. A nation's first duty is to define its own borders — that's the bedrock of sovereignty. This ruling says that a foreign national picked up in Phoenix has the same legal standing as a citizen when it comes to freedom of movement. Look at the families. Look at the children. The policy they struck down still allowed bond for non-criminals, but now even that check is gone. The cartels are watching. The human traffickers are watching. And the foundations that funded these lawsuits are the same ones that funded the "sanctuary city" ordinances, the same ones that funded the "abolish ICE" campaigns. It's not a coincidence. Go look up the Tides Foundation's donor list for 2020. Find the cross-references with the Center for American Progress. Then ask yourself: who profits when a nation can no longer control its own borders? The answer is already in front of you.