The U.S. Supreme Court is set to decide whether immigrants with criminal histories can be held for prolonged periods in federal custody without a bond hearing in a case that could reshape immigration detention practices nationwide.
The justices agreed on June 15, 2026, to hear an appeal from President Donald Trump’s administration challenging a Second Circuit ruling that detention can become “unreasonably prolonged,” requiring a bond hearing at which the government must justify continued custody by clear and convincing evidence.
At issue is a question left unresolved in prior rulings: whether the Constitution’s due process protections limit how long authorities can detain individuals without individualized review, even when federal law requires their detention during removal proceedings.
The case stems from the prolonged detention of two lawful permanent residents held for months without hearings after criminal convictions that triggered mandatory custody under the Immigration and Nationality Act, which largely bars release on bond while deportation cases proceed.
One of the men, a lawful permanent resident, was convicted in New York in 2015 of second-degree assault and sentenced to two years in prison. He was later taken into custody by the Department of Homeland Security in October 2020.
The other, also a lawful permanent resident, was convicted in New York in 2000 of sexually abusing a child and child endangerment and received a sentence of five years of probation. Authorities initiated removal proceedings against him in 2019 and took him into custody that same year.
Federal law currently mandates that the Department of Homeland Security detain certain noncitizens with specified criminal records while their deportation cases proceed. That authority, codified in the Immigration and Nationality Act, largely removes the possibility of release on bond in such cases. The Trump administration has expanded immigration arrests and detention capacity under a nationwide deportation operation aimed at increased enforcement.
Newsweek spoke to six legal and policy experts to assess how the Supreme Court’s decision could reshape immigration detention.
A Constitutional Question Left Open
Legal experts say the Supreme Court is now positioned to address a gap it left open in its 2018 decision in Jennings v. Rodriguez, which held that federal law does not require periodic bond hearings for immigration detainees but declined to resolve whether the Constitution itself imposes such limits.
“The overriding question is how long can an unlawful immigrant be detained before constitutional due process kicks in,” Bennett Gershman, a law professor at Pace University, told Newsweek. He noted that the court has never definitively answered whether prolonged detention without a hearing violates due process.
Gershman said the case reflects a tension between two competing interests: “the interest of immigrants in not being held … without some opportunity to challenge their detention, and the public interest in protection from the dangers posed by criminal acts.”
The dispute stems from cases involving individuals who were detained for months or years without a hearing, including one held for seven months and another for 21 months. Courts have split on whether such durations trigger constitutional concerns, contributing to the Supreme Court’s decision to intervene.
Possible Outcomes and Legal Paths
Experts say the justices could take several approaches, ranging from reaffirming broad detention authority to recognizing constitutional limits on prolonged detention or crafting a narrower middle-ground rule.
Paul A. Lucas, a criminal justice professor at East Carolina University, told Newsweek recent Supreme Court decisions suggest “a reluctance to create bond-hearing requirements that Congress has not explicitly authorized.” At the same time, he noted that the court “has repeatedly declined to fully resolve whether the Constitution itself places limits on prolonged mandatory detention.”
A ruling in favor of the Trump administration would likely reinforce the current framework, allowing immigration authorities to continue holding detainees without individualized hearings for extended periods. By contrast, a decision requiring bond hearings could expand judicial oversight and potentially reduce detention lengths, Lucas said.
Other experts said the court may also decline to reach the broader constitutional question altogether. The justices have asked the parties to address whether the case is moot because one of the individuals involved has since been released from custody, raising questions about whether the dispute still presents a live controversy.
Ingrid Eagly, a law professor at UCLA, told Newsweek the mootness issue could limit the court’s ability to address the central question. “It is possible the Court could decline to review the merits,” she said.
Impact on Detention and Enforcement
The outcome could have significant implications for how ICE manages its detention system, particularly as detention has expanded under the administration's hardline mass deportation policy.
While the case centers on immigrants detained after criminal convictions, a Supreme Court ruling recognizing constitutional limits on prolonged detention could shape future challenges involving noncitizens without criminal histories who are held for extended periods in immigration custody.
Jason A. Cade, a law professor at the University of Georgia, told Newsweek the case may be framed as concerning detainees with criminal histories, but its implications are broader. He described the current detention system as increasingly “indiscriminate,” with fewer individualized assessments of flight risk or danger.
“Once detention is decoupled from those assessments and applied at scale, prolonged detention isn’t an aberration; it’s the built-in result,” Cade said.
He added that systemic factors, including a reduction in immigration judges and a growing backlog of cases, have contributed to lengthy detentions, raising constitutional questions about whether meaningful limits exist.
A ruling requiring hearings after prolonged detention, Cade said, would function as a procedural safeguard rather than a barrier to detention itself. Such hearings would allow judges to determine whether continued custody is necessary based on factors like flight risk or public safety.
Public Safety Concerns and Competing Views
Supporters of mandatory detention argue that it is essential for public safety and effective immigration enforcement.
Jeremy Beck, co-president of the restrictionist group NumbersUSA, told Newsweek that requiring bond hearings could lead to the release of individuals who pose risks to the community.
“The answer to prolonged detention is faster, more effective enforcement — not bond hearings that return dangerous individuals to communities,” he said.
Beck also argued that a ruling against the government could complicate enforcement efforts and increase reliance on other measures, such as employment verification systems, to encourage compliance with immigration laws.
Others say existing legal tools already allow authorities to detain individuals who pose genuine risks, and that individualized hearings are necessary to ensure detention is justified.
“A bond hearing isn’t a release order,” Cade said. “It’s a process for sorting who needs to be held from who doesn’t.”
Sarah Sherman-Stokes, a clinical professor at Boston University School of Law, told Newsweek a decision recognizing due process limits could provide detainees with an opportunity to contest their confinement and improve fairness in the system. She added that allowing prolonged detention without review “will ensure that more noncitizens are detained” and could deter people from pursuing legitimate claims.
A High-Stakes Decision
The Supreme Court’s eventual ruling is expected to provide clarity to lower courts, which have been divided on the issue, and could influence detention practices for thousands of individuals in removal proceedings.
At its core, the case asks the justices to define the constitutional balance between the government’s authority to detain noncitizens and the protections against prolonged confinement without judicial review, a question that has grown more pressing as immigration enforcement and detention have expanded under the Trump administration.
Whether the court draws a clear line, adopts a more limited rule, or sidesteps the issue on procedural grounds, legal experts agree the decision will have far-reaching consequences for immigrants across the nation.
