WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Thursday to review a Trump administration policy that treats millions of immigrants who entered the country illegally as subject to mandatory detention throughout their deportation proceedings, without access to an individual bond hearing.

The justices granted review in Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, docket number 26-104. The case asks how federal immigration law applies to people who are already living inside the United States but were never formally admitted. Oral argument is expected in the coming months.

The case centers on Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha, a Brazilian citizen who authorities say entered the United States about two decades ago and applied for asylum in 2016. Immigration officers arrested him in September 2025, and an immigration judge concluded that the law required his detention while removal proceedings continued.

Barbosa da Cunha has not been charged with or convicted of a crime, according to his attorneys. He sought a hearing at which an immigration judge could decide whether he posed a danger or flight risk and whether release on bond was appropriate. A bond hearing would not end his deportation case or guarantee his release.

The dispute follows guidance issued by the Department of Homeland Security in July 2025. The administration says a 1996 immigration law requires detention for people present without lawful admission, even when they are arrested far from the border after years in the country. Earlier administrations generally allowed many noncitizens without criminal records to ask an immigration judge for bond.

Federal courts have divided over that interpretation. The 2nd Circuit ruled for Barbosa da Cunha, while most appellate courts to examine the broader issue have rejected mandatory detention without a bond hearing. The 5th and 8th circuits have accepted the government's position, creating different rules in different parts of the country.

Administration lawyers told the Supreme Court that the split has produced an unworkable patchwork and thousands of legal challenges. They argue that consistent mandatory detention is necessary for orderly immigration enforcement and that Congress wrote the statute to prevent people who entered without admission from being released while their cases proceed.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which represents Barbosa da Cunha, says the government is stretching a rule associated with people seeking entry at the border to cover immigrants apprehended anywhere in the country, regardless of how long they have lived there. Its lawyers said the interpretation could affect millions of noncitizens.

The Supreme Court's order did not decide the merits. It means the justices will examine the statutory question after lower courts reached conflicting conclusions. The Court has a 6-3 conservative majority and has allowed several other administration immigration measures to take effect, but the selected case presents its own text and procedural history.

Enforcement and due process are not opposites

A sovereign country has the right to enforce its immigration laws. The United States cannot operate a credible border system if removal orders are routinely ignored or if people can disappear from proceedings without consequence. The administration is correct that one federal law should not produce fundamentally different detention rules depending on where an arrest occurs.

But consistency alone does not make a rule just. Detention is a serious deprivation of liberty, especially when proceedings can take months or years. An individualized hearing asks a narrow and practical question: does this particular person need to remain confined because of danger or flight risk? It does not grant legal status, erase an unlawful entry or prevent deportation.

That distinction is important in a democracy. Strong enforcement is most durable when the government can explain and defend each coercive decision before a neutral judge. Automatic detention may be administratively simpler, but efficiency cannot become the only measure when a person who has no criminal record may lose work, housing and contact with family before the government has completed the underlying case.

The administration also has a legitimate concern about absconding and overloaded courts. Congress should fund enough immigration judges, detention capacity and case officers to produce decisions quickly. Electronic monitoring and reporting requirements can be used where appropriate. Years of delay turn every choice into a harsher one and weaken confidence in the entire system.

The harder reality is that both parties have often preferred slogans to administration. One side promises mass enforcement without building a fast, reviewable process; the other speaks about compassion while tolerating backlogs that leave lawful applicants and migrants in uncertainty. A serious system needs both secure borders and rules that can survive judicial scrutiny.

The Supreme Court should resolve the statutory conflict clearly and narrowly. Whatever result it reaches, Congress remains responsible for writing a system that distinguishes recent border arrivals, longtime residents, criminal threats and people with pending legal claims. Treating every case as identical may be simple, but it is not evidence of control. Real control comes from prompt decisions, individualized risk assessment and enforcement that the public can see is both firm and lawful.