The federal appeals court in Chicago said Thursday it would continue to block the release of hundreds of people detained by immigration authorities, but it also rejected a novel argument that’s been used by the Trump administration to hold people in mandatory detention.That’s the upshot of the c omplex ruling by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. It addresses two orders handed down by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Cummings in October and November — right in the thick of the deportation campaign known as “Operation Midway Blitz.”Judge John Lee, who authored Thursday’s 27-page appeals court opinion, said it won’t go into effect for two weeks. That’s at the request of the Trump administration, which might turn next to the U.S. Supreme Court. Related Federal appeals judge questions validity of order that could free hundreds from ICE custody Though the appeals court blocked Cummings’ attempt to release hundreds of detainees, it handed two key losses to the Trump administration. First, it sided with Cummings on his October decision to extend into February what’s known as the Castanon Nava settlement agreement.Originally set to expire in May, the deal restricts the ability of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to make warrantless arrests in Illinois and nearby states.Second, the appeals court rejected the Trump administration’s new reading of immigration law, which has been used to hold people in mandatory detention. The practice has been rejected by district courts across the country, and Lee wrote that it “upends decades of practice.”That makes the 7th Circuit the first federal appeals court to reject the Trump administration’s mandatory detention argument, according to Mark Fleming, associate director of federal litigation for the National Immigrant Justice Center.The group represents plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit. Related Father of daughter battling cancer is being held illegally and deserves chance at release, judge rules That argument has been central to the feds’ attempts to hold people like Ruben Torres Maldonado, whose arrest disrupted his teenager daughter’s cancer treatment. U.S. District Judge Jeremy Daniel in October rejected the government’s argument in that case, leading to Maldonado’s release.Still, the 7th Circuit ultimately agreed Thursday to block a separate order by Cummings in November, which sought to release as many as 615 people who were still held by immigration authorities and who do not pose a high safety risk.That potential pool of detainees is now down to 442, Lee wrote in the opinion. Roughly half of them, arrested without a warrant, could be released if a judge makes individual determinations about whether their arrests violated the settlement agreement.Lee faulted Cummings for a blanket finding that the detainees were “potential” class members of the lawsuit, “given the number of instances where … the rights of the class members were violated.”But Fleming said Cummings couldn’t make that kind of determination in the first place, because Justice Department lawyers were “dragging their heels” when it came to providing necessary information.Fleming vowed that his team is “going to push very, very hard to get those records as quickly as possible, review those records as quickly as possible, and get to the adjudication that these folks all deserve.”The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Related Judge says he’ll order release of hundreds of people arrested under feds’ deportation blitz The three-judge panel that heard arguments in the case Dec. 2 included Lee and Judges Thomas Kirsch and Doris Pryor. Kirsch wrote a nine-page dissent Thursday, insisting Cummings’ orders in October and November should be blocked entirely.Lee and Pryor were appointed by President Joe Biden. Kirsch was appointed by President Donald Trump. Cummings was also appointed by Biden.Kirsch was the most outspoken of the judges during this month’s arguments, asking, “how could it be that one district court judge in the United States can entrench policy positions from one administration to the next?”The settlement agreement had been reached during the Biden administration.Kirsch continued to press the point in his dissent, noting that Cummings’ orders “require the government to comply with the previous administration’s views of mandatory detention” and “bar ICE from using warrants in a way the government believes is lawful.”He wrote that Cummings “was wrong about how much flexibility the executive branch is due when it gives up enforcement authority to the judiciary.”Lee wrote that Kirsch’s concern “is not an unreasonable one.” Still, Lee added, judges are obligated to “say what the law is” and “do not merely rubber stamp consent decrees.” What’s more, Lee said the argument raised by Kirsch was not raised by the Trump administration.It’s difficult to conclude that the Trump administration should win on an argument “they did not raise either before us or even before the district court below,” Lee wrote. ...read more read less