Overview
- The court on Oct. 1, 2026 agreed to hear Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, the government’s appeal of a 2nd Circuit ruling that a Brazilian man detained in Massachusetts was entitled to a bond hearing.
- At issue is how to read a clause of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act that applies to an “applicant for admission,” with the administration saying it covers many inland arrests and challengers saying it was meant for border apprehensions.
- Lower courts are split: judges in nine federal circuits have rejected the administration’s broad reading while the 5th and 8th Circuits have upheld mandatory detention, producing thousands of habeas petitions and uneven enforcement nationwide.
- The Department of Justice urged the high court to take the case, arguing that mandatory detention prevents evasion of hearings, while the ACLU and other advocates call the policy a radical reinterpretation that detains longtime residents and people who crossed as children.
- The justices will hear argument during the new term and are expected to issue a decision by next June that will either endorse a core Trump enforcement tool or restore bond hearings for tens of thousands of detainees.