What happened
On October 1, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States granted the government's petition in Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, docket No. 26-104. The Court's docket shows one line for that day: “Petition GRANTED.” That means the justices will hear the case. It does not mean they have decided anything.
The question the Court agreed to answer is written on its own website: “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.” In plain words: when a person who entered the country without being inspected is placed in removal proceedings, does federal law require ICE to keep that person detained the whole time, with no bond hearing in front of an immigration judge?
The dispute goes back to 2025. According to the government's own petition, DHS had for decades let people who entered without admission ask an immigration judge for a bond hearing. In July 2025, ICE issued interim guidance taking the opposite position: that these people are “applicants for admission” who must stay detained unless DHS releases them on parole. On September 5, 2025, the Board of Immigration Appeals agreed in a published decision, Matter of Yajure Hurtado, holding that immigration judges “lack authority to hear bond requests or to grant bond to aliens who are present in the United States without admission.”
Federal courts of appeals then split. The petition lists the Second, Sixth, Tenth and Eleventh Circuits as ruling that the mandatory-detention rule does not reach people in this situation, so a bond hearing remains available to them, and the Fifth and Eighth Circuits as ruling that it does. The Supreme Court takes cases like this to settle that kind of disagreement nationally.
Who this is about
The person in the case, Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha, is a citizen of Brazil who, per the petition, entered the United States around 2004 or 2005 and remained here. In September 2025, ICE took him into custody after a traffic stop in Massachusetts and charged him with being present without admission. An immigration judge refused to hold a bond hearing. A federal district court in New York ordered one, he was released on bond on October 29, 2025, and the Second Circuit upheld that ruling on April 28, 2026. The government then asked the Supreme Court to step in.
The question presented covers people who are “present in the United States without having been admitted,” which is how the law describes someone who crossed the border without inspection. The petition itself says that since the 2025 change, thousands of people in that situation have filed habeas petitions in federal court asking for release or a bond hearing.
The Court's materials do not say the case covers people who were admitted on a visa and overstayed, people with lawful status, or people who are not in removal proceedings. They do not set a date for argument, and they do not say when a decision will come. Until the Court rules, the law stays as it is in each circuit: different in different parts of the country.
What it does not mean
- It does not mean the Supreme Court has sided with either side. Granting a petition only means the justices will hear the case.
- It does not mean anything has changed for people currently detained or currently released on bond. Existing court orders stand until a court changes them.
- It does not mean the Court will rule on whether this kind of detention violates the Constitution. The question it accepted is about what the statute requires; the petition notes the Second Circuit did not reach a separate constitutional holding.
- It does not mean ICE has new authority. The policy in dispute dates from July 2025 and is already being litigated in courts across the country.
What to do with this
If someone in your family is detained by ICE, or has been told they cannot ask for bond, the person to talk to is a licensed immigration attorney or a DOJ-accredited representative at a recognized nonprofit. Whether a bond hearing is available right now depends on where the person is being held and on what the courts in that circuit have said, and that is a question only a qualified advisor can answer for a specific person. The organizations below are a place to start.
Advocasí is not a law firm. We explain what a policy says and help people prepare their own paperwork once a qualified advisor has told them which path applies.