Supreme Court to review Trump policy denying bond hearings to detained immigrants
Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Membership today.
The Supreme Court has agreed to review a Trump administration policy that denies bond hearings to immigrants amid a broad federal enforcement crackdown.
The justices will decide whether foreign nationals living inside the United States have a legal right to a hearing to determine if they must remain in detention while fighting their deportation.
The case represents a significant challenge to a core pillar of the Trump administration's hard-line approach to immigration.
A majority of federal appeals courts to address the issue have ruled that detaining immigrants without a bond hearing, including those living in the country illegally, violates federal law.
Those decisions directly conflict with rulings from the 5th and 8th Circuit Courts of Appeals, which determined that individuals accused of unlawfully entering and staying in the U.S. must be held in custody while their removal cases proceed.
The high court selected the case of Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha, a citizen of Brazil.
According to authorities, he entered the United States unlawfully two decades ago and filed an asylum application in 2016.
He requested a bond hearing after an immigration judge ruled that his detention was mandatory following an arrest in September 2025.
His attorneys stated that he has never been charged with or convicted of any crime.
Oral arguments before the justices are expected in the coming months.
Officials in President Donald Trump’s administration had asked the court to consider a separate but related lawsuit that addresses broader constitutional questions regarding the rule.
Government attorneys contend that the split among federal appellate courts is "disrupting the orderly administration of immigration law."
They said tribunals across the country are flooded with thousands of legal challenges from immigrants contesting the administration's interpretation.
"The result is an unworkable patchwork of inconsistent immigration enforcement, where aliens present without admission are subject to mandatory detention in some circuits but are entitled to bond hearings and often released in others," lawyers for the administration wrote.
Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the plaintiffs note that hundreds of federal district court judges have joined most appellate circuits in rejecting the government's reading of the law.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs argue that the administration is seeking to deny bond hearings to immigrants arrested anywhere in the country, regardless of how many years they have lived in the U.S., rather than confining the mandatory detention rule to noncitizens apprehended at the border.
"Millions of noncitizens could be affected by the government’s new interpretation," ACLU attorneys wrote.
The Trump administration maintains that its updated policy is authorized by a 1996 immigration law. The shift marks a departure from previous administrations, which traditionally permitted most noncitizens without criminal records to apply for a bond hearing if detained away from border areas.
