The decision marks a split at the appeals court level, setting up the possibility for the issue to reach the Supreme Court.

A federal appeals court has rejected the Trump administration’s bid to lock up the majority of people it is seeking to deport without an opportunity for release on bond — even if they have no criminal records and have resided in the country for decades.

In a 3-0 ruling, a panel of the New York-based 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals found that ICE’s policy was based on a flawed, implausible and unprecedented interpretation of decades-old laws. But more fundamentally, the panel said the Trump administration’s position would raise acute constitutional concerns by instituting “the broadest mass detention-without-bond mandate in our Nation’s history for millions of noncitizens.”

“The government’s interpretation … would send a seismic shock through our immigration detention system and society, straining our already overcrowded detention infrastructure, incarcerating millions, separating families, and disrupting communities,” Judge Joseph Bianco, a Trump appointee, wrote for the panel. “If Congress meant to achieve such a radical break from the past, it would not have done so in such an indirect and ambiguous way.”

Bianco was joined by Clinton appointee Jose Cabranes and Biden appointee Alison Nathan. It’s the first appellate court ruling rejecting the Trump administration’s view, even though district court judges across the country have widely concluded that ICE’s policy is illegal and unconstitutional.

The ruling also puts the 2nd Circuit at odds with the Louisiana-based 5th Circuit and the Missouri-based 8th Circuit, which sided with the Trump administration’s view, a split that could put the long-simmering dispute on a trajectory to the Supreme Court. Both circuit panels were divided 2-1 in favor of the administration.

The 2nd Circuit decision is an inflection point in a raging legal brawl playing out across the country, deluging courts with tens of thousands of emergency lawsuits brought by people abruptly detained by ICE despite living in the U.S. for years without incident. Many were paroled into the country by prior administrations and established roots in the country, including U.S. citizen spouses and children.

The fight traces to a 1996 immigration law meant to streamline the deportation process and set up an expedited system to remove people who recently crossed the border. That law requires immigration authorities to detain — without bond — anyone who crosses the border and is “seeking admission” to the U.S. without authorization.

For decades, administrations of both parties applied this mandate to people who had newly arrived in the country, perhaps by crossing the southern border. Those residing in the country’s interior, often for years, were categorized under a different statute that allowed them to seek a bond hearing before an immigration judge before ICE could lock them up.

But in July, ICE Director Todd Lyons adopted a new interpretation of the law, declaring that anyone targeted for deportation by ICE would be treated as an “applicant for admission,” subjecting them to mandatory detention. That decision was backed up in September by the Board of Immigration Appeals, a panel of immigration judges who set national policy for executive branch-run immigration courts that handle deportation proceedings.

But the policy has drawn widespread rejection and condemnation by federal courts across the country. A POLITICO analysis has found 420 federal district court judges who have rejected the Trump administration’s position, compared to 47 who have sided with the administration.

“Regarding decisions from federal courts about mandatory detention, judicial activists have been repeatedly overruled by the Supreme Court on these questions,” A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said. “ICE has the law and the facts on its side and will be vindicated by higher courts.”

Despite that lopsided result, the 2nd Circuit’s district judges had, until Tuesday’s ruling, been one of the Trump-friendliest in the nation in the debate over mandatory detention. Seven New York-based federal judges had ruled in favor of ICE’s position — including the only Biden appointee in the nation to side with the Trump administration on the issue.