The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that could fundamentally reshape detention practices in immigration removal proceedings. The case the Supreme Court granted review for on Monday focuses on the detention of lawful permanent residents. Two green-card holders argued that they were denied their constitutional right to a bond hearing while detained by ICE—one held for seven months, the other for 21 months—without an individualized determination of whether continued detention was necessary.
What changed
The case focuses on the detention of lawful permanent residents. Carol Black and Keisy G.M. are both green-card holders who have lived in the United States legally for decades. ICE detained Black in 2019 and started deportation proceedings, holding him for seven months. Seeking to be back with his family while his investigation continued, Black sought a hearing where he could receive and post a bond, which the immigration judge would not grant. Ultimately, Black had to file a habeas petition in federal court, arguing that going seven months without a hearing violated his constitutional right to an individualized determination.
ICE detained G.M. for 21 months without a bond hearing, and only released him because of a court order in a separate case, which gave nationwide relief to a class of prisoners receiving unjust treatment during COVID.
The Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled that both Black and G.M. had constitutional due process rights to a bond hearing. Immigration proceedings, the court explained, are civil, not criminal matters, and the Supreme Court has long suggested that there would be serious constitutional problems with a statute that allows indefinite civil detention.
Why it matters
This Supreme Court review creates uncertainty for detention practice nationwide. The statute the government relied on for Black’s and G.M.’s detentions is the Immigration and Nationality Act. In previous cases, the Supreme Court has interpreted the law’s bond provisions narrowly. In 2003’s Demore, the court held that an initial bond hearing was not required by the statute. Then in 2018’s Jennings, Justice Samuel Alito held that this same statutory provision does not require a bond hearing after a particular period of delay, in a 5–3 ideological opinion. The court in Jennings, however, did not rule on whether the Constitution itself requires a bond hearing, which is what the 2nd Circuit decided here.
A Supreme Court decision favoring the immigrants could establish a federal constitutional floor for bond hearings independent of the statute—affecting detention decisions for all categories of removable aliens, not just LPRs. A decision favoring the government would allow indefinite civil detention to proceed without timely individualized hearings, potentially affecting your clients’ litigation options.
Way forward
- Track the briefing schedule. Check supremecourt.gov for the case docket and briefs from the parties and amici. Immigration litigation organizations and civil rights groups will file briefs.
- Document detention conditions and timelines now. For current clients in removal proceedings, create detailed records of detention dates, requests for bond hearings, and any delays. These facts may become critical evidence if the case reaches trial or appeal.
- Review your bond hearing arguments. Prepare Mathews v. Eldridge due process challenges (private loss of liberty, risk of government error, government interest) independent of the statute, as the Court may require.
- Monitor oral argument and decision. The Court typically schedules arguments in the fall; decisions come in June 2027 or later. Update your practice procedures once the ruling issues.
Disclaimer
This article is a plain-English summary of publicly available legal reporting and court documents and is not legal advice. Fola is a software company, not a law firm. Consult a licensed immigration attorney to advise on your specific case or situation. Immigration policy and court precedent can change without notice. Verify all information against the primary source linked above and current agency guidance before relying on it in litigation or client advice.