President Trump's administration reversed longstanding immigration enforcement policy in July 2025, requiring mandatory detention without bond for noncitizens who entered the country unlawfully, regardless of how long they have lived in the United States or their criminal history.
The Supreme Court agreed on October 1 to decide the case of Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, which centers on whether the Immigration and Nationality Act actually mandates this detention policy. Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha, a Brazilian national who entered without inspection around 2005, now operates a construction business, owns a home, and lives with his U.S.-citizen wife and children. He has no criminal record. Immigration officers arrested him in September 2025 while he was driving to work in Massachusetts.
A federal immigration judge found Cunha posed neither a danger nor a flight risk and released him on bond. The Trump administration appealed and lost in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. The Supreme Court will now decide whether the statute requires mandatory detention for someone in Cunha's position.
The legal dispute hinges on two phrases in the same section of federal law. The law defines someone who entered without lawful admission as an "applicant for admission." But the mandatory detention requirement applies only to an applicant for admission who is "seeking admission." If these phrases mean different things, Cunha and others like him remain eligible for bond hearings under a different section. If they mean the same thing, the government can detain them without bond.
The Trump administration argues that anyone deemed an "applicant for admission" must necessarily still be "seeking admission." But the 2nd Circuit, in a unanimous opinion by Trump appointee Judge Joseph Bianco, concluded that "seeking admission" describes ongoing activity rather than a retained legal status. A judge from the 5th Circuit who disagreed with the administration's position invoked the same textualist principles in dissent.
For nearly 30 years across five presidential administrations, including Trump's first term, the government treated people in Cunha's position as potentially eligible for bond. Trump reversed that practice in July 2025. Congress has long required mandatory detention for specified criminal and terrorism-related grounds, and the Laken Riley Act of 2025 expanded those categories. If the Trump administration's reading were correct, those carefully drawn categories would become pointless for noncitizens who illegally entered the country.