Status as of October 5, 2026. The Supreme Court granted review on October 1 in Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, No. 26-104. The Court will decide whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) requires detention pending removal proceedings for certain noncitizens who are already inside the United States after entering without admission. The Court has not yet posted an oral-argument date.

The case addresses a nationwide split over which detention statute applies to people who entered without inspection, remained in the United States, and were later arrested in the interior. The distinction determines whether detention is mandatory under section 1225(b)(2)(A) or instead governed by section 1226(a), which permits release on bond in appropriate cases.

What question the Supreme Court agreed to decide

The Supreme Court's question presented asks whether section 1225(b)(2)(A) mandates detention pending removal proceedings for noncitizens who, like respondent Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha, are present in the United States without having been admitted.

The Court granted the petition on October 1. Granting certiorari means the justices will review the legal question; it does not itself create a new nationwide detention rule.

What the Second Circuit held

In April 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that section 1225(b)(2)(A) does not apply to people who are already present in the United States after entering without inspection and admission and who were not apprehended while entering the country or shortly afterward. The court held that section 1226(a) governs detention in that situation.

On September 25, the Second Circuit denied rehearing en banc. The court's order also described the growing circuit split over the same statutory question.

Why the result currently depends on jurisdiction

Federal courts of appeals have reached different conclusions. The Fifth and Eighth Circuits have accepted the government's reading that section 1225(b)(2)(A) requires mandatory detention for this category. Other circuits, including the Second, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh, have rejected that interpretation, and the Second Circuit's September 25 order also cited decisions from the First and Third Circuits taking the same general position.

Because those appellate rulings remain in place unless changed or stayed, access to a bond process can still depend on where a person is detained and which precedent controls. The Supreme Court's October 1 grant does not by itself erase those circuit decisions.

Who this case does not cover

The case is not a general ruling on every form of immigration detention. The question before the Court concerns section 1225(b)(2)(A) and people present in the United States without admission. Separate mandatory-detention provisions, including section 1226(c) for specified criminal categories, raise different legal questions.

Frequently asked questions

Does the Supreme Court's grant mean bond hearings have stopped nationwide?

No. Granting certiorari does not itself create a nationwide rule. Existing circuit precedent continues to matter while the case is pending unless a court enters a separate stay or other order.

Who is directly affected by the question in Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha?

The case concerns noncitizens who are already in the United States without having been admitted and whom the government seeks to detain under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) while removal proceedings are pending.

When will the Supreme Court hear oral argument?

As of October 5, 2026, the Supreme Court docket shows that review has been granted but does not list an oral-argument date.

Official sources

Immigration Bond: Who Can Ask, What It Costs, and Why Everything Depends on the Circuit

Disclaimer: Factum Immigration is a journalistic publication. This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. Immigration laws, regulations and agency practices may change. For advice about an individual case, consult a qualified immigration attorney or an accredited representative.