The justices will decide whether immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for years after entering illegally can be held without a bond hearing while their deportation cases proceed.
 |
| The Supreme Court agreed Thursday to hear a challenge to the Trump administration's mandatory detention policy for immigrants. |
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Thursday to hear a challenge to the Trump administration's policy of holding immigrants without bond while their deportation cases are pending. The case will be argued in the term that begins Monday.
The policy applies to immigrants who entered the country illegally, including many who have lived here for years. Lower courts have split over whether federal law allows it, and the outcome could affect millions of people.
What the policy changes
For roughly three decades, immigrants who were already living in the United States could generally ask an immigration judge to release them on bond. Judges typically granted release if the person was not considered dangerous or likely to flee.
In July 2025, the Department of Homeland Security issued guidance that changed this. It said immigrants in the country illegally are subject to mandatory detention, with no bond hearing, for as long as their removal proceedings last. Those proceedings can take months or even years. The administration relies on a new reading of a 1996 immigration law.
Immigration judges have since denied bond hearings to people who had been living and working in the U.S. for a long time. About 70,000 people are now in immigration detention nationwide, up from about 40,000 before Trump returned to office in January 2025.
The case before the court
The justices took up the administration's appeal of a ruling from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in New York. The case involves Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha, a Brazilian citizen.
According to court filings, Barbosa da Cunha crossed the border from Mexico around 2004 or 2005 and has lived in the U.S. since. He applied for asylum in 2016 and received a work permit. He owns a construction business and a home in Massachusetts, where he lives with his wife and their two children, who are U.S. citizens. Court papers list no known criminal history.
Federal immigration agents arrested him in September 2025 while he was driving to work in Norwood, Massachusetts. He was first denied a bond hearing under the policy, but he was released on bond at a later stage of his case, according to court papers.
In April, the 2nd Circuit ruled in his favor. The panel noted that Congress had never overturned the long-standing practice of allowing bond for certain migrants, even as it made other major changes to immigration law. Even if the administration's reading were plausible, the court said, it would still have to avoid an interpretation that raises "serious constitutional questions." It described the policy as the broadest mass detention without bond in the nation's history.
Lower courts are divided
Thousands of detained immigrants have sued over the policy. A Reuters analysis in February found that judges had ruled more than 4,400 times that the administration had unlawfully detained people under it. The New York Times reported that more than 500 district court judges have rejected the policy.
The appeals courts are split, though most have ruled against the administration. The 2nd Circuit and the 6th Circuit, based in Cincinnati, both ruled against the policy, and those decisions led the administration to seek Supreme Court review. In February, the 5th Circuit, based in New Orleans, sided with the administration in a 2-1 decision involving two Mexican men. Judge Edith Jones wrote that earlier administrations' choice not to use mandatory detention does not mean "they lacked the authority to do more."
Arguments from each side
Solicitor General D. John Sauer urged the justices to reverse the 2nd Circuit. In court filings, he argued that detaining immigrants who stayed after entering illegally keeps them from evading hearings and helps ensure they are removed.
Immigrant advocates and the immigrants' lawyers say federal law entitles noncitizens to a bond hearing no matter how they entered the country. They argue the administration's reading would let the government jail millions of long-term residents with no chance of release before a judge. They also note that five presidential administrations over three decades, including Trump's first, provided custody hearings.
Other cases on the court's docket
The court is also set to hear another major immigration case this term. On Tuesday, it allowed the administration to resume, for now, deporting migrants to countries other than their own without giving them a chance to show they could be harmed there. Arguments in that case are scheduled for December.
The court's conservative majority is 6-3, and it has allowed several of Trump's immigration policies to take effect. The justices also added two unrelated cases Thursday: a Kentucky dispute over whether a federal religious discrimination law protects Catholic priests who want to build a shrine to the Virgin Mary over neighbors' objections, and a North Dakota divorce case over military benefits. The court is expected to decide its cases by next June.