The justices will decide whether the administration can require detention without bond hearings for certain immigrants facing deportation.
Web Desk: The US Supreme Court has agreed to review the Trump administration’s policy requiring certain immigrants to be detained without bond hearings while their deportation proceedings are pending, opening another major legal challenge to the administration’s immigration policies.
The court granted review on Thursday in Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, a case involving Brazilian national Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha. The justices will consider whether federal immigration law authorises mandatory detention for certain noncitizens already living in the United States without giving them an opportunity to seek release on bond.
Supreme Court Takes Up Detention Dispute
The case was brought by Philip L. Rhoney, acting director of the Buffalo Field Office of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), against Barbosa da Cunha.
The Supreme Court docket shows that the petition was filed in July and that the justices granted review on October 1. The case originated in the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
The Supreme Court’s decision could determine whether the administration can continue applying mandatory detention to a broad group of immigrants during removal proceedings without allowing them to request a bond hearing.
Policy Changed Under Trump Administration
The Department of Homeland Security issued guidance in July 2025 stating that certain immigrants who entered the United States unlawfully are subject to mandatory detention without bond hearings while their deportation cases proceed.
Reuters reported that the policy represented a departure from a longstanding interpretation under which certain immigrants already living in the United States could seek release on bond while their cases were considered by immigration courts.
The Trump administration argues that its interpretation is authorised by federal immigration law, including provisions governing people classified as applicants for admission.
A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said the administration believes it is implementing the law as Congress intended.
Lower Courts Have Split
The policy has produced substantial litigation across the US.
Reuters reported that the Second and Sixth US Circuit Courts of Appeals have ruled against the administration’s interpretation, while AP reported that the Fifth and Eighth Circuits have reached conclusions supporting the government’s position.
This disagreement among federal appellate courts is one reason the Supreme Court has agreed to take up the dispute.
According to Reuters, more than 73,000 related cases had been filed in federal court in 2026 by immigrants seeking relief from detention. A Reuters analysis earlier this year also found that judges had ruled thousands of times that detentions under the administration’s approach were unlawful.
Case Centres on Brazilian National
Barbosa da Cunha entered the United States around 2004 or 2005 and was arrested by immigration officers in Massachusetts in September 2025, according to court records and reporting.
He was initially denied a bond hearing under the disputed policy but was later released on bond during his case.
His lawyers, represented in part by the American Civil Liberties Union, argue that the administration’s interpretation of federal immigration law unlawfully removes access to bond hearings.
The government maintains that mandatory detention is authorised by the immigration statutes at issue.
Supreme Court Immigration Cases
The detention dispute is one of several major immigration cases before the Supreme Court during its new term.
The court is also scheduled to consider a separate challenge involving the administration’s policy of rapidly deporting migrants to countries other than their own. The justices recently allowed those deportations to resume temporarily while the broader legal dispute proceeds.
The mandatory-detention case therefore comes as the Supreme Court considers several disputes involving the scope of the administration’s immigration powers.
