Trump Administration Returns Immigration Detention Question to Supreme Court

Status as of September 28, 2026. The government's petition in Genalo v. D.C. (No. 26-379) asks the Supreme Court to grant certiorari before judgment; D.C.'s response is due October 21, 2026. A second petition, Trump v. Suri (No. 26-380), was filed the same day. The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to grant either petition.

The Trump administration has filed a new petition asking the Supreme Court to review a district court ruling on bond hearings for noncitizens detained under Section 1226(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, before the federal appeals court has ruled in the case. The government is asking the justices to grant certiorari before judgment and return the issue to the Court's 2026-27 argument docket.

The petition, filed Monday, September 21, presents two questions. First, whether detention under Section 1226(c) can become "unreasonably prolonged," such that due process requires a bond hearing. Second, if so, whether the government must justify continued detention by clear and convincing evidence.

The administration's move comes ten days after the Supreme Court dismissed its earlier case raising the same questions, Genalo v. Black, as moot.

The new case: Genalo v. D.C.

The respondent is identified in court papers only as D.C. He was born in the Dominican Republic in 1963 and, according to the government's petition, entered the United States unlawfully at an unknown time and place. DHS detained him under Section 1226(c) in September 2025, on the day he completed a New York prison sentence.

In March 2026, D.C. filed a habeas petition in the Southern District of New York. On March 20, Judge Paul A. Engelmayer ruled that his detention of about six and a half months had become prolonged enough to require a bond hearing, applying the Second Circuit's decision in Black v. Decker (2024). An immigration judge then granted release on a $1,500 bond, and D.C. was released from ICE custody on March 31.

The government appealed and asked the Second Circuit to summarily affirm, acknowledging that Black controls the outcome there. The certiorari-before-judgment petition asks the Supreme Court to skip that step. Solicitor General D. John Sauer points out that the Court has used this procedure before to let a new case replace one that was dismissed, citing ZF Automotive v. Luxshare (2022).

Background on Section 1226(c)

Under Section 1226(c), the government must detain certain noncitizens who fall within specified criminal and terrorism-related grounds while their removal proceedings are pending. Lawful permanent residents can be covered. The Laken Riley Act of 2025 added a category of inadmissible noncitizens who have been charged with, arrested for, convicted of or admitted to specified offenses.

The Supreme Court upheld the provision against a facial challenge in Demore v. Kim (2003). In Jennings v. Rodriguez (2018), it held that the statute itself does not require periodic bond hearings, but it did not decide whether due process requires them when detention runs long.

Why Genalo v. Black was dismissed

The Court agreed on June 15, 2026 to hear Genalo v. Black to answer that open question. The case involved two lawful permanent residents held under Section 1226(c), Carol Williams Black and Keisy G.M. Black had left the United States before the Court took the case, so review was granted only as to G.M.

Three days before G.M.'s merits brief was due, the Governor of New York granted him a full and unconditional pardon for the aggravated felony conviction that made him deportable. Both sides agreed the case was moot, and the Court dismissed it on September 11 and removed it from the October argument calendar.

The government did not ask the Court to vacate the Second Circuit's ruling. Black v. Decker therefore remains binding precedent in New York, Connecticut and Vermont.

A second petition: Trump v. Suri

Monday also brought a second petition from the administration, in Trump v. Suri, asking the Supreme Court to review a July 23, 2026 Fourth Circuit ruling that upheld a district court's authority to hear Badar Khan Suri's habeas challenge to his immigration detention and affirmed the order releasing him on bail. Suri, a Georgetown University scholar, argues that his detention violated his free speech and due process rights. The divided panel held that the INA's limits on judicial review of removal decisions do not bar a separate challenge to detention. The government argues that such challenges must be channeled into review of a final removal order.

How the courts of appeals disagree on 1226(c)

What this means right now

• The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to grant either petition. In Genalo v. D.C., D.C.'s response is due October 21, 2026.

• Until the Court rules, existing circuit law applies. In New York, Connecticut and Vermont, a person held under Section 1226(c) whose detention has become unreasonably prolonged can seek a bond hearing through a habeas petition under Black v. Decker. In the Eighth Circuit, the length of detention alone does not create that right.

• If the Court grants review and agrees with the government, the Second and Third Circuit rules would no longer apply. If it rules for D.C., a bond-hearing right for prolonged 1226(c) detention would apply nationwide.

• The Suri petition, if granted, could narrow district courts' ability to hear habeas challenges to detention during pending removal proceedings.

Official sources

→ Immigration Court and Removal Proceedings

This article is for information only and is not legal advice. Current as of September 28, 2026. Check the official sources above before making decisions.