The US Supreme Court agreed on Thursday to hear a dispute over a policy by President Donald Trump's administration that subjects millions of immigrants to mandatory detention. The court will hear the case in its new term that begins on Monday. Many lawsuits have challenged this hardline immigration agenda recently.
WASHINGTON, Oct 1 (Reuters) - The US Supreme Court agreed on Thursday to hear a dispute over a policy by President Donald Trump's administration that subjects millions of immigrants in the United States illegally to mandatory detention during their deportation proceedings.
In this latest legal battle over Trump's hardline immigration agenda to reach the top US judicial body, the justices face an issue that has divided lower courts as numerous lawsuits by migrants and advocacy groups challenging the policy have played out.
The justices took up the administration's appeal of a lower court's ruling against the policy. The court will hear the case in its new term that begins on Monday.
The US Department of Homeland Security in July 2025 issued new guidance to federal immigration officials announcing that immigrants in the United States illegally are subject to mandatory detention without a bond hearing for the duration of their deportation proceedings, which can take months or even years to play out.
The guidance represented a departure from a nearly three-decade-old interpretation of federal law that immigrants already living in the United States could be released on bond while they pursue their cases in immigration court.
The disputed policy is one of a number of measures the administration has taken in its pursuit of Trump's goal of mass deportation. The Republican president has enforced a sweeping crackdown on immigration -- among his top priorities -- since returning to office last year.
Immigrants detained under the policy have filed tens of thousands of lawsuits seeking their release. A Reuters analysis in February found that hundreds of judges around the country had ruled more than 4,400 times that Trump's administration had detained such immigrants unlawfully.
SPLIT AMONG APPEALS COURTS
The voluminous litigation has led to a split among federal appellate courts.
The New Orleans-based 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision in February sided with Trump. In a decision reversing rulings that had led to the release of two Mexican men, US Circuit Judge Edith Jones wrote that decisions by prior administrations not to use mandatory detention, as Trump is doing, "does not mean they lacked the authority to do more."
The 5th Circuit ruling prompted a Supreme Court appeal by Victor Buenrostro-Mendez and Jose Padron Covarrubias, two Mexican nationals who entered the United States illegally in 2009 and 2001, respectively, and were detained by immigration officials last year under the policy. At an earlier stage of litigation, both men convinced lower-court judges they were wrongly denied bond hearings.
Both men have sought to challenge the administration's attempt to deport them. Federal law allows such challenges by immigrants who have lived continuously in the United States for at least a decade, have no disqualifying criminal history and can show that a US citizen or a family member who is a lawful permanent resident, or "green card" holder, would suffer serious hardship if they are deported.
Most federal appellate courts to review the policy have ruled against it. Decisions against the policy by the New York-based 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals and Cincinnati-based 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals prompted the administration to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has allowed a number of Trump's hardline immigration policies to go into effect.
The court already is set to hear arguments in another major immigration-related case during its term.
The court on Tuesday let the administration resume, for now, swiftly deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them the chance to show the harms they may face. The justices scheduled arguments in that case for December.