Supreme Court takes up mandatory detention case

Audio By Carbonatix

(The Center Square) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear a case challenging the Trump administration's policy to hold illegal immigrants in mandatory no-bond detention centers. 

The case, Rhoney v. Barbosa de Cunha, focuses on Brazilian national Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa de Cunha. He entered the United States around 2004 or 2005, according to court documents, and has remained ever since. 

In September 2025, de Cunha was stopped by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers in Massachusetts. The officers found de Cunha did not have immigration paperwork and was not legally admitted into the United States. 

ICE began removal proceedings against de Cunha and charged him as inadmissable. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security determined de Cunha would be detained for the remainder of his removal proceedings, according to Trump administration policies established in July 2025. 

A district court in New York eventually released de Cunha on bond, arguing that the Trump administration's policy did not apply to him and prevented him from being detained without bond. 

Lawyers for the Trump adminsitration argued that immigrants must be detained while removal proceedings are ongoing. Two U.S. Appeals Courts have allowed illegal immigrants to be detained without bond, but nine other courts ruled against the Trump administration's policy. 

"The 'only aliens eligible for custody determination and release on recognizance, bond or other conditions are aliens admitted to the United States and charged with deportability,'" lawyers for the Trump administration wrote. 

However, lower courts that allowed de Cunha to be released on bond said the Trump administration's order is illegal and is an attempt to "construe" federal immigration laws in favor of holding immigrants in detention.

"Congress has never challenged that settled practice despite making numerous amendments to the immigration laws," judges on the Second Circuit U.S. Court of appeals wrote. 

The appeals court argued that the Trump adminisration's policy could only apply to individuals who were apprehended at or near the U.S. border at the time of entry. The court cited the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act to support its ruling. 

"Even if the government's newfound interpretation were plausible – and it is not – we would nonetheless reject it based on our obligation to construe these statutes in a manner that would avoid the serious constitutional questions attendant to what would be the broadest mass-detention-without-bond mandate in our Nation's history for millions of noncitizens," the appeals court wrote. 

The Trump administration argued the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act was meant to specifically define what constitutes an individual who enters the United States. 

"Now, in removal proceedings, the burden of proof depends on whether the alien has been lawfully admitted," the Trump adminsitation wrote. "An alien who is an 'applicant for admission' must establish that he is 'clearly and beyond doubt entitled to be admitted' and 'not inadmissible.'"

The Trump administration lawyers said de Cunha did not provide admissability evidence because he entered the United States without paperwork. Justices on the high court will hear this case in its upcoming term that is set to define other immigration issues including noncitizen voting and asylum termination policies. 

The court will likely hear the case in the beginning of 2027 and issue its decision by June 2027.