Trump's mandatory detention policy fails in Florida appeals court

• Now, two federal appeals courts have ruled against the government, while two others have supported the policy. One deadlocked.

Driving the news: The case stems from the government's reinterpretation of a 1996 policy governing which migrants had to be held in detention and who was eligible for bond.

• Since the policy change last year, anyone who entered the country illegally would be detained by ICE without bond, regardless of how long they've been already been living in the country.
• The implementation has contributed to the swell of people in ICE detention, reaching a high of more than 70,000 earlier this year.

Zoom in: "Simply put, the language that Congress has chosen to use does not grant to the Executive unfettered authority to detain, without the possibility of bond, every unadmitted alien present in the country," Judge Stanley Marcus wrote in the opinion.

• "Nowhere in the text, structure, or history of the INA does that reading find steady footing," the opinion says.

By the numbers: Hundreds of federal courts have ruled against the mandatory detention policy as migrants have taken to filing habeas corpus petitions to get release, according to a Politico analysis.

What we're watching: The differing appeals court decisions suggest the Supreme Court will inevitably weigh in on the legality of the policy.

The other side: The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to Axios' Wednesday evening request for comment.

Go deeper: Habeas petitions flood courts in immigration detention challenges

<br/>