The Supreme Court of the United States agreed to review the mandatory detention policy of the Donald Trump administration that allows the custody of certain immigrants without access to a bond hearing while they face deportation proceedings, a legal battle with direct implications for numerous Cubans detained by ICE.
The highest court accepted the case this Thursday, according to its official records. The dispute, named Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, will determine how far the federal government can go in applying mandatory detention to immigrants already within the United States and whether they should be able to request their release on bail.
The Supreme Court has yet to decide whether the policy is legal and what has happened so far simply means that the judges have agreed to examine the conflict between federal courts, reported AP.
The arguments will be heard in the coming months, and a ruling will follow that could establish a uniform rule for the entire country.
The controversy revolves around two provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act: 8 U.S.C. § 1225 and 8 U.S.C. § 1226.
The Trump administration argues that individuals who entered without being formally admitted can be considered “applicants for admission” and are subject to mandatory detention under section 1225, even when they have been living in the United States for years.
The plaintiffs argue, on the other hand, that those who are already in the country and are subsequently arrested by immigration authorities should be placed under section 1226(a), which allows them to request a hearing before an immigration judge to determine whether they can be released on bail while their process continues.
For decades, the federal government itself allowed bail hearings for many immigrants who had entered without inspection and were subsequently detained within the territory.
The administration modified that interpretation in 2025 and began to defend a much broader application of mandatory detention, which triggered numerous legal challenges.
The Supreme Court intervenes after different federal courts reached opposing conclusions. Most circuits that have examined the issue have rejected the government’s interpretation and acknowledged that certain immigrants detained within the country can request a bail hearing. In contrast, the Fifth and Eighth Circuits have supported the administration's position.
The ACLU, which represents the immigrant listed as a defendant in the case, argues that the Government's interpretation could affect millions of people living in the United States without having been formally admitted.
The administration, for its part, argues that the immigration law passed by Congress in 1996 requires that detention regime.
For Cubans, this matter is particularly relevant due to the increase in immigration arrests and the situation of individuals who entered through the border, received documents such as the I-220A, were processed through parole or other immigration pathways, and subsequently remained in the custody of ICE.
But there is an essential difference: the Supreme Court did not eliminate this Thursday the right to request bail that currently exists for certain detainees within the 11th Circuit.
That circuit, whose jurisdiction includes Florida, Georgia, and Alabama, ruled on May 6 in Hernandez Alvarez v. Warden, Federal Detention Center Miami that the mandatory detention outlined in section 1225 generally applies to immigrants who are arriving and seeking to enter the country, while those who are already inside and are subsequently detained are subject to section 1226.
An analysis from the Cato Institute released in April indicated that detentions of Cuban migrants by ICE had increased by 463% between October 2024 and January 2026.
Florida led in arrests of Cubans, with 708 cases recorded by December 2025, primarily in Miami-Dade, Broward, and Collier.
The possibility of obtaining a bond hearing gained particular importance in May, when the 11th Circuit recognized that certain immigrants detained by ICE in Florida, Georgia, and Alabama could request that a judge evaluate their release on bail.
That precedent is precisely one of the elements that is now becoming relevant with the review that the Supreme Court will undertake.
The differences between migration categories, however, remain decisive. This Thursday, the case of a Cuban who entered through humanitarian parole and was detained by ICE while working as an Uber driver was reported.
According to his lawyer, he was classified as an arriving alien, a category under which the immigration judge would not have jurisdiction to grant him bail.
The man had been in the United States for nearly three years and had a pending residency application under the Cuban Adjustment Act.
Este caso ante la Corte Suprema podría cambiar las reglas de detención para miles de inmigrantes en todo el país. Sigue de cerca todos los desarrollos en nuestra sección de
Related videos:
Filed under: