President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown is headed for another Supreme Court showdown.
The justices agreed Thursday, Oct. 1, to hear Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, a challenge that could determine whether immigrants who entered the United States without lawful admission must remain in detention while their deportation proceedings unfold. The court accepted the case without deciding whether the administration’s policy is lawful.
At stake is the administration’s interpretation of a federal immigration law requiring detention for certain applicants for admission. The government argues that the requirement also covers people arrested inside the country after entering illegally, even when they have lived here for years.
The Second Circuit rejected that interpretation, concluding that the mandatory-detention provision applies to people seeking entry or apprehended at the threshold of entry. The administration’s petition says that ruling conflicts with decisions from the Fifth and Eighth Circuits.
The Case Behind the Showdown
The dispute involves Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha, a Brazilian citizen who entered the United States without inspection around 2004 or 2005.
According to the appeals court’s opinion, he later applied for asylum, obtained work authorization and lived in Massachusetts with his wife and two American children. The court said he had never been arrested for or charged with a crime.
ICE arrested him in September 2025. After an immigration judge denied him a bond hearing, he challenged his detention in federal court. He ultimately received a hearing and was released on bond.
Another Detention Fight Remains Unresolved
The new Supreme Court case comes as Trump’s administration pursues a separate constitutional dispute over prolonged detention of noncitizens with qualifying criminal convictions.
That earlier fight was disrupted when New York Gov. Kathy Hochul pardoned Keisy Guerrero Mariano, whose conviction formed the basis for his mandatory detention. The parties agreed the pardon made his detention challenge moot, and the Supreme Court dismissed the case.
Solicitor General John Sauer subsequently asked the justices to hear Genalo v. D.C. as a replacement, seeking an answer to whether prolonged detention requires a bond hearing—and who must justify continued custody if a hearing is required.
Florida State University law professor Michael Morley told Fox News Digital the government wants “one uniform interpretation for the entire country.”
Thursday’s order brings the broader dispute over detention of immigrants present without admission before the nation’s highest court.
