The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Thursday to review the Trump administration's policy of imposing mandatory detention without bond hearings on migrants who entered the country illegally. The case, Rhoney v. Barbosa Da Cunha, is scheduled for oral argument early next year, with a decision expected by late June.

What changed in detention policy?

The administration broke with decades of past practice — including that of Trump's first term — after returning to power in 2025. Officials reinterpreted a 1990s immigration statute. They now treat many long-term residents as "applicants for admission," which triggers mandatory detention under a provision that historically applied only to migrants stopped at ports of entry.

How large has the detained population grown?

Immigration and Customs Enforcement held just under 38,000 migrants at the end of the Biden administration. By summer 2026, that figure had risen to more than 65,000. The expansion followed ICE raids that swept up thousands of people, many of whom filed habeas corpus petitions in federal courts challenging their confinement.

What does the underlying legal dispute involve?

The dispute turns on two provisions of federal immigration law:

• One provision says migrants arrested pending removal proceedings may be released on bond while the case proceeds. Courts have long read this to give officers discretion.
• A separate provision says officials "shall" detain an "alien who is an applicant for admission" if officers determine the person "is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted."

The administration now treats long-term residents encountered in the U.S. interior as "applicants for admission" subject to the mandatory clause.

What have lower courts decided?

More than 20,000 lower-court rulings have addressed the government's interpretation, according to CNN Supreme Court analyst Steve Vladeck, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center.

"The administration's ability to indefinitely detain tens of thousands of noncitizens pending their removal depends entirely on whether its novel reading of the statute is correct — a reading that has provoked more than 20,000 rulings in the lower courts, the overwhelming majority of which have gone against the Trump administration," Vladeck said.

The Justice Department had asked the justices to take up a different appeal rather than Rhoney v. Barbosa Da Cunha.

What was the prior bond-hearing practice?

"Under what had been the government's view until last July, most arrestees would've been entitled to a bond hearing — and, if they pose no risk of flight or harm to others, to release pending their removal," Vladeck added. "And there was little reason to use the government's resources to arrest folks who'd just be promptly released."

Who is the named petitioner?

The granted case centers on a Brazilian native who entered the United States illegally around 2004 or 2005. ICE encountered him during a traffic stop in Massachusetts in 2025. Opponents of the policy note that many detainees have lived in the country for decades, often with U.S.-citizen children.

What did the Justice Department argue?

"The government's detention of such unlawfully present aliens while their removal proceedings unfold implements the statute Congress enacted," the Justice Department said in a parallel filing. "Congress's decision to mandate detention pending removal proceedings for aliens who are not entitled to be admitted into the country reflects vital policy objectives."

The filing added that mandatory detention "prevents those aliens from evading hearings and helps ensure their removal from the United States."

What other immigration case is before the court?

Earlier this week, the justices allowed the administration to resume deporting certain immigrants to countries other than their homeland, over the dissent of the three liberal justices. Lower courts had found the practice violated a federal law requiring migrants facing third-country removal to make an individualized claim that they could face torture in those destinations.

When will the court rule?

The court is expected to hear arguments in Rhoney v. Barbosa Da Cunha early next year. A decision should arrive by late June, before the term closes.