Supreme Court will review mandatory immigrant detention without bond hearings

The Court agreed to hear the case, but has not decided it

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on October 1 to review the Trump administration's policy of treating many immigrants arrested inside the country as subject to mandatory detention throughout their removal proceedings. AP, Reuters and CBS report that the dispute is Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, docket 26-104. Granting review sets up briefing and argument; it does not decide whether the policy is lawful or whether any individual must remain detained. [1][2][3][5]

The issue is access to a bond hearing, where an immigration judge can assess flight risk and danger. A hearing does not guarantee release, end a removal case or confer lawful immigration status. The reviewed reports say arguments are expected during the Court's new term, but no argument date or merits ruling was available at publication. [1][3][5]

The legal dispute turns on two detention provisions

The administration argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) requires detention of people present without admission while their cases proceed. The Second Circuit held that people already living in the country who were not apprehended at or near the border are instead governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which permits release on bond. The appeals court described that conclusion as statutory and also said the government's broader reading would raise serious constitutional questions. [4][2][1]

Lower courts are divided. Reuters reports that the Fifth Circuit accepted the government's reading while most appellate courts to consider it rejected the policy; CBS counted two appellate courts permitting mandatory detention and nine requiring bond eligibility for the affected group. Those descriptions use different snapshots and scopes, so they should not be combined into a single court tally. [2][3][1]

The named respondent was released after a hearing

Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha is a Brazilian citizen who entered the United States without inspection around 2005, applied for asylum in 2016 and received work authorization. ICE arrested him while he was driving to work in September 2025. The Second Circuit record says a district judge ordered the government to provide a bond hearing or release him, and an immigration judge then found he was neither a flight risk nor a danger and released him on bond. [4][3][6]

The Second Circuit ruling is limited: it does not disturb mandatory detention for some people apprehended while entering or for certain criminal or terrorism-related categories. It addresses which statute governs people like Barbosa da Cunha who were arrested after living inside the country for years. [4]

The eventual ruling could affect thousands of pending cases

Reuters says immigrants have filed tens of thousands of challenges and that its February analysis identified more than 4,400 rulings by judges finding detentions under the policy unlawful. Plaintiffs' lawyers told AP that the government's interpretation could reach millions of noncitizens. The first figure describes reviewed court outcomes; the second is an advocacy estimate of potential legal reach, not a count of people currently detained. [2][1]

Spanish-language AP coverage and Portuguese-language UOL coverage describe the same grant and legal split. UOL attributes its underlying report to Reuters, so it is treated as the Reuters origin rather than an additional independent confirmation. Both non-English accounts were reviewed for names, dates and the distinction between granting review and deciding the merits. [7][8][2]

How the sources compare