The Supreme Court agreed on October 1 to decide whether the government may keep people who entered the United States without inspection in detention for the full length of their deportation cases, with no chance to ask an immigration judge for release on bond. The case, Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, No. 26-104, tests a detention policy at the center of the administration’s enforcement push, one that has kept long-time residents with families, jobs and pending applications in custody.
The dispute turns on two parts of federal immigration law. One provision, 8 U.S.C. 1226(a), lets the government detain a person during removal proceedings but allows release on bond. Another, 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(2)(A), requires detention of an “applicant for admission” who is seeking admission and is not clearly entitled to be admitted. SCOTUSblog reported that the administration issued guidance last year applying the mandatory provision to people already living in the country, a break from earlier practice of handling them under the provision that permits bond or parole.
The man at the center of the case is Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha, a Brazilian citizen who, according to the government’s petition, entered without inspection around 2004 or 2005, applied for asylum in 2016, received work authorization, and lives in Massachusetts with his wife and U.S. citizen children. He was arrested during a traffic stop in September 2025. A federal district court granted his habeas petition, and the Second Circuit affirmed on April 28, 2026, holding that the mandatory detention provision does not apply to people living inside the country who were not caught at or near the border.
The appeals courts are split. The government’s petition says the Second, Sixth, Tenth and Eleventh Circuits have ruled for detainees, while the Fifth and Eighth Circuits have accepted the government’s reading. The government argues that the plain words of the statute cover everyone present without a lawful admission, however long they have lived here. SCOTUSblog reported that federal district judges have issued rulings against the administration’s approach.
Much remains open. The court’s docket shows the petition was granted but does not set an argument date, and SCOTUSblog reported that argument is expected in early 2027, which would likely mean a decision by the end of the term next summer. Until then, whether a detained person can get a bond hearing may depend on which part of the country they are held in. The question before the court is limited to people present without having been lawfully admitted. People who were inspected and admitted on a visa, such as H-1B workers or F-1 students, are not the subject of this case, although the court’s reading of the detention statutes could still shape how other custody disputes are argued.
Families of someone who entered without inspection and is now in ICE custody should speak with an immigration attorney quickly about whether to request a bond hearing or file a habeas petition in federal court, since the answer currently depends on the circuit. People in that situation who have pending applications, such as asylum, should keep receipt notices, work permits and proof of their time in the United States easy to find.
Visa holders who are in valid status are not directly affected by this case. Anyone whose status has lapsed, or who is unsure how they were admitted, should get individual legal advice rather than rely on general news coverage while the Supreme Court considers the issue.
Source: Supreme Court docket, No. 26-104; Petition for a writ of certiorari, Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha; SCOTUSblog.
This article is for general information and is not legal advice. The situation is changing quickly, so please consult an immigration attorney about your specific case.
About the Author
Discover more from Immigration Analytics
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
