Hunger-striking detainees in Guantánamo Bay will be able to challenge in federal court the force-feeding to which many are being subjected, a Washington appeals court ruled on Tuesday, though the judges declined to put an immediate end to the practice.

In a split judgment from the US court of appeals for the DC circuit that deals with Guantánamo, the judges ruled by 2-1 to allow detainees to challenge the conditions of their confinement, specifically force-feeding, in habeas corpus petitions to the federal courts. The decision overturns two earlier rulings by separate district judges who had suggested the military commissions in Guantánamo effectively stripped the federal courts of jurisdiction over detainees and their custodial conditions.

Though the appeal court ruling will do nothing instantly to change the plight of the hunger-striking detainees, it does open the door to challenges against force-feeding in the federal courts. Shayana Kadidal, managing attorney of the Guantánamo project at the Center for Constitutional Rights, predicted there would now be a wave of claims from detainees relating to solitary confinement, force-feeding and policies that prevent the men being able to work with their lawyers on a regular basis.

“That’s ultimately because conditions at Guantánamo have got much worse than they were during Obama’s first term, not because the courts have had some sudden change of heart,” Kadidal added.

Since December, US authorities have declined to make public the number of detainees who are on hunger strike, making it impossible to know with certainty the extent of the protest. But lawyers working with the men estimate that of the total of 155 still detained on the base in Cuba, with 34 on hunger strike.

Of those, 17 are being force fed – or “approved for enteral feeding”, as it is officially known. The detainee is strapped to a restraint chair, a tube inserted through his nose into the stomach and liquid nutrition passed down it in a process that takes 30 to 40 minutes to complete twice a day.

One of the men thought to be currently on hunger strike is Shaker Aamer, a British resident who remains in Guantánamo despite having been cleared for release by both the Bush and Obama administrations. In remarks he made to his lawyer in advance of the ruling, Aamer said: “This is one step towards justice … Instead of making matters worse here, they should treat us with respect, like human beings.”

Aamer, 45, was one of three detainees who petitioned the DC appeals court leading to Tuesday’s ruling. He is represented legally by the human rights group Reprieve, whose strategic director Cori Crider welcomed the judgment as a victory for the prisoners. “The detainees have been on hunger strike for years now, with the simple, peaceful demand that they be given a fair trial or freedom. President Obama agrees that the Guantánamo regime is a blot on the reputation of America, and it is time he put an end to the torturous force feeding there.”

The other two petitioners, both of whom have been force-fed, were Ahmed Belbacha from Algeria and Abu Dhiab, who is Syrian.

In their 36-page ruling, the two majority judges led by David Tatel vent their strong qualms about force-feeding. “We have no doubt that force-feeding is a painful and invasive process that raises serious ethical concerns,” Tatel writes.

But they go on to argue that, according to legal precedent, they must also consider the responsibility to preserve the lives of those in custody and the impact on security and discipline in Guantánamo. They conclude that it is best to err on the side of caution, to give the federal courts time to come to a considered opinion.