Summary: On October 1, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha (No. 26-104). The Court will decide whether federal law requires immigration detention, without a bond hearing, for people who are living in the United States after entering without being admitted.
What happened
The question the Court accepted is “whether 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(2)(A) mandates the detention pending removal proceedings of aliens who, like respondent, are present in the United States without having been admitted.”
For decades, people who entered without inspection and were later arrested inside the country were generally detained under a different law, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which allows release on bond. According to the respondent’s brief, the government changed that interpretation in 2025 and began treating these people as “applicants for admission” who must be held without bond.
The respondent, Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha, is described in his brief as a long-time resident who entered years ago and came forward to apply for asylum before being arrested. After a federal district court ordered a bond hearing, an Immigration Judge found he was neither a danger nor a flight risk and ordered his release, according to the brief. On April 28, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled for him, holding that the mandatory-detention provision does not apply to people in his situation.
The government, represented by the Solicitor General, argues that a 1996 law made lawful “admission,” not physical entry, the key question, so anyone present without admission is covered by mandatory detention. Its petition notes that the Second Circuit’s ruling conflicts with decisions of the Fifth and Eighth Circuits. The respondent’s lawyers, from the ACLU, the New York Civil Liberties Union and the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, say seven of nine circuits have rejected the government’s reading.
Who is affected
The outcome could affect people across the country who entered without inspection, have lived here for some time, and are arrested and placed in removal proceedings. The case is about whether they can ask an Immigration Judge for release on bond while their case is decided. It does not decide whether anyone can stay in the United States.
What it means
Granting review is not a ruling on the merits. Until the Court decides, the rules in each federal circuit continue to apply, which is why results now differ depending on where a person is detained. As of October 18, the docket did not list an argument date; on October 16 the government filed a motion for an extension of time. A separate case already before the Court, Genalo v. Black (No. 25-886), raises a related due process question about mandatory detention under a different provision. For people with pending asylum or other cases, the final decision may determine whether bond hearings remain available nationwide.
Source: Supreme Court of the United States – Docket No. 26-104, Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha (petition granted) (published October 1, 2026)
Wondering how this affects you or your family? Every case is different. Schedule a consultation with Attorney James Betzold, by phone or video, or call (833) 847-2335.
This article is a news summary for general information only and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Immigration law changes often and every case is different; only a legal consultation with Attorney James Betzold can determine how this news applies to you.