The Supreme Court has officially decided to step into the ongoing drama surrounding immigration policy. They’re going to hear a case centered on the Trump administration’s practice of keeping migrants who allegedly crossed the border illegally in detention indefinitely.
The core of the issue
For a long time, the vibe was that people facing immigration issues could request a bond hearing before a judge while their cases were pending. However, President Trump has been working to end what he calls "catch and release" policies, concerned that these individuals might just ghost their court dates rather than show up.
The case landing on the Supreme Court’s desk involves Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha, a Brazilian citizen who allegedly entered the U.S. about twenty years ago and has been seeking asylum. His legal team points out that he has never been charged with a crime, yet an immigration judge decided he had to remain in custody, shutting down his requests for a bond hearing.
Why it matters
Currently, there are roughly 70,000 migrants being held in detention centers, according to data from Immigration and Customs Enforcement. U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer argues that indefinite detention is a necessary move to ensure people don't skip out on hearings and that they can actually be removed from the country if ordered. On the flip side, immigrant rights groups are fighting back, claiming federal law guarantees noncitizens the right to a bond hearing, and they say this policy is lowkey undermining that protection.
Lower courts have been split on whether these mandatory detentions are legal, so the Supreme Court is finally stepping in to set the record straight. While the court is set to begin its new term on Monday, a specific date for these oral arguments hasn't been set yet.
Real talk: this is a major stress test for the administration's immigration agenda. The President has previously shared some shade regarding his handpicked justices when they’ve ruled against him in the past, noting in a recent interview with TIME that they “voted against me too often.” We'll have to see if this case gives him a W or an L when the final opinion drops.
