The Supreme Court will decide whether the government can hold noncitizens in detention for prolonged periods without bond hearings. The case involves two green card holders convicted of aggravated felonies who were detained for seven months and nearly two years without hearings. This Supreme Court review could overturn current practice in several circuits and reshape how immigration officers handle long-term detention nationwide.
What changed
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide if the government may hold noncitizens in detention for prolonged periods without a bond hearing. The case centers on two green card holders who had been convicted of aggravated felonies that immigration officials sought to deport to the Dominican Republic in one case and to Jamaica in the other. One of the men was held for seven months and the other for nearly two years as their removal cases were pending.
A federal appeals court in New York ruled in 2024 that the due process clause requires a bond hearing for prolonged detention for noncitizens. The Trump administration appealed. The Trump administration appealed that decision to the Supreme Court in January, arguing that it was “seriously misguided.”
The law at issue requires mandatory detention for noncitizens convicted of a list of crimes. This statutory framework has been the basis for prolonged detention without bond review, even when detention stretches months or years.
Why it matters
If the Supreme Court upholds the Second Circuit’s 2024 decision, you’ll need to reframe how you handle detention for clients convicted of crimes in removal proceedings. Currently, immigration officers cite mandatory detention for noncitizens convicted of a list of crimes as justification for holding clients indefinitely during their cases. A ruling requiring constitutional due process protections would mean detention officers must conduct bond hearings to determine flight risk and danger to community—not just automatically detain based on a criminal conviction.
The timing matters: The Trump administration has reclassified certain types of immigrants to sweep far more people into mandatory detention — a move that has been repeatedly challenged in court and that is likely to be ultimately reviewed by the Supreme Court. If SCOTUS narrows the scope of mandatory detention or requires bond hearings for prolonged detention, the administration’s reclassification strategy could be blocked.
Conversely, if the Supreme Court reverses the Second Circuit and upholds the government’s position, long-term detention without hearings will remain legal in all circuits. This would eliminate a potential avenue for fighting detention in cases where clients have been held for months without bond review.
Way forward
-
Review your detention cases immediately. If you represent clients detained in the Second Circuit (New York, Connecticut, Vermont) as of the 2024 ruling, they may already be entitled to bond hearings under current law. Document the length of detention and gather evidence of ties, employment, and non-danger.
-
Track amicus filings. The Supreme Court’s decision on whether to accept the case is already made, but watch for amicus briefs from ACLU, DOJ, state attorneys general, and immigration law groups that may signal how the Court is leaning.
-
Preserve the record now. In any removal case involving prolonged detention, obtain all detention orders, administrative decisions, and evidence of length of confinement. The Supreme Court’s ruling may apply retroactively to pending cases, and you’ll want a complete record for any motion to reconsider detention.
-
Prepare alternative arguments. Even if mandatory detention holds up under SCOTUS review, brief due process and Fifth Amendment claims based on the specific facts of your client’s detention (mental health, family ties, community roots, flight risk evidence).
Disclaimer
We’re a software company, not a law firm. This article is not legal advice. Consult a licensed immigration attorney before relying on this summary for case strategy. USCIS policy and federal precedent can change without notice. Verify all claims against the primary source linked above and the relevant federal regulations and case law.