US Supreme Court agrees to hear challenge to mandatory immigration detention without bond hearings News
Marielam1, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons
US Supreme Court agrees to hear challenge to mandatory immigration detention without bond hearings

The US Supreme Court granted certiorari on Thursday to determine whether mandatory detention without a bond hearing may be imposed for noncitizens who entered the US without inspection and were later detained in the interior.

Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha, the respondent challenging his detention in this case, was arrested in September 2025 and placed in removal proceedings. He was denied a bond hearing by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under its interpretation that he was subject to mandatory detention.

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) distinguishes between noncitizens detained as “applicants for admission” under 8 USC § 1225 and those detained during removal proceedings under 8 USC § 1226. Before the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), immigration law generally relied on the concept of “entry.” IIRIRA replaced that framework with the concept of “admission,” defined as “the lawful entry of the alien into the United States after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer.” In the decades since the passage of IIRIRA, the government has generally treated noncitizens who entered without inspection but were later arrested in the interior as subject to § 1226(a), which permits release on bond. In 2025, however, DHS adopted the position that such noncitizens are instead “applicants for admission” subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A). The Second Circuit rejected that interpretation in Barbosa da Cunha’s case, holding that his detention was governed by § 1226(a).

The US Supreme Court also acted in several other cases involving Trump administration immigration and citizenship policies last month. On September 29, the court allowed the administration to resume third-country deportations while agreeing to hear arguments in December on the legality of the policy and the lower court’s authority to review it. The court also allowed the federal government to resume checking voters’ citizenship against Social Security records, pausing a lower court order that had blocked the system on privacy-law grounds.