Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha, a Brazilian national held by U.S. immigration authorities, argues that federal law does not require his detention without a bond hearing. The district court and the Second Circuit ruled for him, and on October 1, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the government’s petition for a writ of certiorari. No argument date has been set.
Latest development Oct 1, 2026
On October 1, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the government’s petition for a writ of certiorari to resolve a circuit split over the scope of mandatory immigration detention. It will hear the case in its October 2026 term.
Why it matters
The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether the executive may detain, without individualized bond hearings, noncitizens who entered without being admitted and have lived in the United States for years. The answer affects large numbers of people in immigration proceedings and dozens of related habeas and class cases.
Background
Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha is a Brazilian national who entered the United States around 2004 or 2005. He later built a family, home, and business in New York. The Trump administration adopted a new policy reading 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) to require mandatory detention without bond for noncitizens present in the country without formal admission. In September 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) detained him, and an immigration judge denied him a bond hearing on the basis of that policy.
Barbosa da Cunha filed a habeas petition, later transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, and amended it on October 3, 2025. He is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), and the Law Office of Paul O’Dwyer PC. He argued that the mandatory-detention provision applies only to noncitizens arriving at the border or ports of entry, not to those who have lived in the interior for years. On November 25, 2025, the court ruled in his favor and ordered the government to provide a bond hearing. The government appealed.
On April 28, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. It held that mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) is limited to noncitizens “seeking admission.” Long-present interior entrants instead fall under the discretionary bond framework of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The ruling conflicted with decisions from other circuits that had adopted the government’s broader reading, creating a circuit split. On July 22, 2026, the Solicitor General petitioned for a writ of certiorari, and Barbosa da Cunha’s counsel filed a response on September 4, 2026.
On October 1, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court granted review. It agreed to decide whether the statute mandates detention pending removal proceedings for noncitizens who are present in the United States without having been admitted. Dozens of related habeas and class proceedings around the country raise the same question. News reports indicate that two circuits have sided with the government and several others, including the Second Circuit, have ruled against the policy. No oral argument date has been set, though commentators expect argument in early 2027 and a decision by the end of the term in June 2027.
Timeline 8 events
-
OrderSupreme Court grants certiorari
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in its October 2026 term to resolve the circuit split over the scope of mandatory immigration detention.
Order List: 609 U.S., October 1, 2026ACLU Comment on Supreme Court Agreeing to Hear Challenge Over Trump Mandatory Detention Policy
-
FilingBarbosa da Cunha files response opposing certiorari
The Supreme Court docket records the response as filed on September 4, 2026.
-
FilingSolicitor General petitions for certiorari
The government, represented by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, asked the Supreme Court to review the Second Circuit’s decision.
-
JudgmentSecond Circuit affirms ruling against mandatory detention policy
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that § 1225(b)(2)(A) mandatory detention applies only to noncitizens seeking admission, not to long-present interior entrants like Barbosa da Cunha.
Cunha v. Freden, No. 25-3141 (2d Cir. 2026)Federal Appeals Court Rules Against Trump Administration's New Mandatory Detention Policy
-
FilingACLU, NYCLU, and co-counsel sue over detention policy
The ACLU, NYCLU, and the Law Office of Paul O’Dwyer PC filed suit challenging the administration’s policy of subjecting large numbers of immigrants to mandatory detention without bond hearings.
-
JudgmentDistrict court grants habeas relief
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York ruled that Barbosa da Cunha was not subject to mandatory detention. It ordered the government to provide a bond hearing.
Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha (petition for writ of certiorari)
-
FilingBarbosa da Cunha files amended habeas petition
He amended his habeas corpus petition challenging the government’s mandatory-detention interpretation of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A).
-
OtherDHS detains Barbosa da Cunha without bond
The Department of Homeland Security placed Barbosa da Cunha in removal proceedings and an immigration judge found him subject to mandatory detention without a bond hearing.
Appeals Court Rejects Trump Admin's Mandatory Detention Policy for Immigrants
Experimental AI forecast
How it is madeHow will the U.S. Supreme Court resolve Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha on the scope of mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A)?
- Court adopts government’s detention reading57%
- Court affirms Second Circuit29%
- Vacated and remanded on narrower ground8%
- Dismissed as improvident or moot4%
- Still pending on July 31, 20272%
- Resolves by
- Jul 31, 2027in 10 months
- Record confidence
- Medium
The Supreme Court is more likely than not (57%) to adopt the government’s reading of § 1225(b)(2)(A) by the end of its term in June 2027. Review was granted on a Solicitor General petition, and the Court reverses most judgments it agrees to hear.
How it resolves. Resolves on the Supreme Court’s disposition in No. 26-104 as shown on its docket or in its opinion. Reversal, or vacatur that adopts the government’s reading that § 1225(b)(2)(A) mandates detention of noncitizens present without admission, counts as the government prevailing. Affirmance of the Second Circuit’s holding counts as Barbosa da Cunha prevailing. A vacatur and remand on other or narrower grounds that adopts neither reading counts as mixed. Dismissal as improvidently granted, or vacatur for mootness, counts as dismissed. No disposition by July 31, 2027, counts as still pending.
Reasoning
Starting point. U.S. Supreme Court merits cases granted on a Solicitor General petition to resolve a circuit split: The Supreme Court reverses or vacates roughly 70% of the lower-court judgments it reviews. Petitions by the Solicitor General are granted and won at above-average rates.
The starting point is the Court’s reversal rate of about 70% in argued cases, which is higher when the Solicitor General is the petitioner. The government also has a textual argument, because the statute defines applicants for admission to include noncitizens present without admission. That reading has persuaded two circuits. Against that, the Second Circuit and several other circuits read “seeking admission” as limiting mandatory detention to noncitizens at or near the border. Those courts relied on statutory structure, the separate bond framework in § 1226(a), and decades of agency practice. That gives affirmance a real chance, which I put near 29%. A narrower vacatur is possible if the Court settles the question without fully endorsing either reading. Mootness is a modest risk because Barbosa da Cunha’s own custody status could change. The live recurring issue and the related class cases make a dismissal unlikely. The record expects argument in early 2027 and a decision by June 2027, so a case still pending on July 31, 2027, is a long shot.
High Supreme Court reversal rate on Solicitor General petitions · Statutory definition of applicant for admission favors government text · Structural and historical arguments that support the Second Circuit · Circuit split shows the question is genuinely contested · Small mootness risk tied to the individual detainee
Generated automatically by Claude Opus 5.5 on Oct 1, 2026 from this case’s record on this site, and published without editorial review. The probabilities are the model’s judgment, not measured frequencies, and they are scored publicly as cases resolve. Not legal or investment advice. How the forecasts are made