The U.S. Supreme Court has granted certiorari and will review the Trump administration's policy of mandatory detention for noncitizens facing deportation, the Bozeman Daily Chronicle reported.

The case asks the justices to resolve a long-running split among the federal appeals courts over whether 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) — a 1996 mandatory-detention statute — requires the Department of Homeland Security to hold certain noncitizens in custody without any opportunity for a bond hearing, or merely permits such detention.

The Court did not announce an oral argument date in its order.

What does § 1226(c) cover?

Section 236(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act directs the Department of Homeland Security to detain, without the Secretary's discretion to release, noncitizens who fall into one of three categories:

• Noncitizens convicted of specified criminal offenses, including aggravated felonies, crimes involving moral turpitude, and controlled-substance violations
• Noncitizens subject to a final order of removal
• Noncitizens inadmissible or deportable on terrorism-related grounds

Congress wrote the mandatory-detention language in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. The statutory list predates the Trump administration.

Who is affected?

The provision can reach lawful permanent residents, asylum seekers, and people with no criminal history beyond the listed offenses. It applies regardless of family ties, length of U.S. residence, or work history.

The administration's policy has been to interpret the statute as requiring detention without any bond hearing. Several federal circuits have ruled differently, holding that the statute allows — but does not require — detention, and that those held under the provision after that period are entitled to a bond hearing before an immigration judge.

What is at stake in the ruling?

If the Supreme Court adopts the administration's reading, the federal government will retain the power to detain without bond anyone who fits the statutory categories. A ruling the other way would open bond hearings to many thousands of detainees and allow immigration judges to weigh community ties, employment, and criminal record.

The ruling will also shape how immigration courts manage their dockets and how counsel prepare detention cases for review.

What happens next?

The Court will hear oral argument during an upcoming term and issue a written opinion. Until then, the administration's mandatory-detention policy remains in force across most of the country, with some circuits applying contrary rulings in their own territory.

Affected noncitizens and practitioners should consult the official docket of the case on the Supreme Court's website for the latest scheduling. As with any pending immigration matter, decisions should rely on counsel and the official source — the Supreme Court docket and DHS guidance — rather than secondary reporting.