The Supreme Court agreed Thursday to hear a major challenge to the Trump administration’s policy requiring millions of immigrants who entered the United States illegally to be detained without access to bond hearings while their deportation cases proceed.
The case could determine how broadly the federal government can use mandatory detention as President Donald Trump continues his immigration enforcement and deportation campaign. If bond hearings are required, immigration judges can still order individuals detained when they determine release is inappropriate.
The justices agreed to hear the administration’s appeal in Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha after lower federal courts split over the legality of the policy. The Supreme Court’s new term begins Monday.
At issue is guidance issued by the Department of Homeland Security in July 2025 that changed the federal government’s interpretation of immigration detention law.
Under the policy, immigrants who illegally entered the country can be treated as “applicants for admission” and subjected to mandatory detention while removal proceedings are pending — even if they have lived inside the United States for years.
That means they generally cannot ask an immigration judge to release them on bond after demonstrating that they are neither dangerous nor likely to flee.
The administration says the policy implements federal immigration law as Congress intended.
“Under President Trump, the Department of Homeland Security finally implemented the law as Congress intended it to,” a DHS spokesperson said after the Supreme Court accepted the case.
For nearly three decades, administrations from both parties generally interpreted the law differently.
Immigrants apprehended after already establishing themselves inside the United States typically could request bond hearings under another section of federal immigration law, while mandatory detention rules were applied more narrowly to people arriving at the border and certain other categories of immigrants.
The Trump administration argues that the distinction is legally incorrect and that immigrants who entered without inspection remain applicants for admission regardless of how long they have lived in the country.
The case reaching the Supreme Court involves Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha, a Brazilian citizen who entered the United States illegally around 2004 or 2005.
He applied for asylum in 2016 and received authorization to work in the United States.
Immigration officers arrested him in Massachusetts in September 2025 while he was driving to work.
An immigration judge initially concluded that the Trump administration’s new policy made his detention mandatory and that he was not entitled to a bond hearing.
Barbosa da Cunha, who his attorneys say has never been charged with or convicted of a crime, challenged his detention in federal court and eventually obtained a bond hearing and release.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently rejected the administration’s interpretation.
U.S. District Judge Joseph Bianco, a Trump appointee, wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel that the government’s position would create what he described as the broadest mandatory detention system without bond in the nation’s history.
“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 wrote.
The administration appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that conflicting decisions around the country have created an unworkable immigration enforcement system.
Most federal appeals courts that have considered the question have rejected the administration’s position.
Nine appeals courts have ruled against mandatory detention under the administration’s interpretation, while the 5th and 8th Circuits have sided with the government.
That means an immigrant’s ability to seek release can currently depend on where the person is detained.
The administration told the Supreme Court that the result is a “patchwork of inconsistent immigration enforcement,” with immigrants subject to mandatory detention in some parts of the country while potentially eligible for bond elsewhere.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which represents Barbosa da Cunha, argues that the administration is attempting to dramatically expand a statute intended primarily for people seeking entry at the border.
“Millions of noncitizens could be affected by the government’s new interpretation,” the ACLU told the court.
The policy has already generated an extraordinary volume of litigation.
More than 73,000 immigration detention challenges have been filed in federal court this year, accounting for roughly one-quarter of all federal civil lawsuits, according to Reuters.
This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
