Full Breakdown
Supreme Court to Review Trump Administration’s Mandatory Detention Policy
By Drooid · · How we work
Core Event
On Oct 1, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear *Rhoney v. Da Cunha*, challenging a Trump administration policy that requires immigrants residing in the United States to remain in detention for the duration of removal proceedings without a bond hearing. The petition centers on Brazilian national Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha, arrested in September 2025 in Norwood, Massachusetts, and initially denied a bond hearing.
Background & Context
In July 2025 the Department of Homeland Security issued guidance extending mandatory detention—previously applied mainly to border apprehensions—to any non-citizen “applicant for admission” living in the interior. The guidance departs from a three-decade-old interpretation that allowed release on bond while immigration cases proceeded and is part of a broader crackdown pursued by President Donald Trump since returning to office.
Key Figures
- Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha – plaintiff challenging mandatory detention.
- John Sauer – U.S. Solicitor General who argued the government’s position.
- Megan Tan – Deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, representing the plaintiffs.
- Joseph Bianco – U.S. District Judge.
- Edith Jones – U.S. District Judge.
Data & Statistics
- Immigrants have filed more than 73,000 lawsuits challenging the rule this year, about 25 % of all civil suits in federal courts.
- A Reuters analysis found district judges have ruled over 4,400 times that the detentions were unlawful.
- ICE is currently housing an estimated 70,000 migrants in detention facilities.
Official Statements & Responses
- ACLU attorney Megan Tan called the government’s interpretation “cruel, inhumane, and unlawful,” noting repeated court rejections.
- Judge Joseph Bianco described the policy an “implausible basis” for the “broadest mass detention-without-bond mandate”.
Criticism & Opposition
- The ACLU argues the policy unlawfully denies bond hearings to long-time residents who have not been charged with a crime.
- Critics say the policy reverses a long-standing legal interpretation that allowed release on bond, potentially affecting millions of non-citizens.
- Legal scholars warn it could exacerbate humanitarian concerns by keeping individuals in detention for “months or even years” while cases proceed.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
- The 2nd, 6th, 10th, and 11th Circuits have ruled that Section 1225(b)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act does not apply to interior arrests, granting bond hearings.
- The 5th and 8th Circuits have held the statute mandates detention for any non-citizen present without admission, regardless of residence length.
- The Supreme Court has not yet scheduled oral arguments, and no dissenting opinions were filed in the certiorari order.
- How the Court will reconcile the divergent circuit interpretations and what standard of review it will apply remains unclear.
What’s Next
The Court’s new term begins the Monday after Oct 1, with arguments in *Rhoney v. Da Cunha* expected in the coming months. Arguments in a separate immigration case are slated for December, indicating further scrutiny of the administration’s immigration agenda.