Two Immigration Cases the Supreme Court Just Agreed to Decide: Mandatory Detention and the Material-Support Bar

Alongside DHS v. D.V.D., the Court has added two immigration cases to its term. One could change who gets a bond hearing in Miami. The other defines a bar that has kept refugees out for decades.

Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha: who must be detained

The question presented, verbatim: “Whether 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(2)(A) mandates the detention pending removal proceedings of aliens who, like respondent, are present in the United States without having been admitted.” The Second Circuit held in April that the mandatory-detention provision for “applicants for admission” does not reach people who entered without inspection and were not apprehended at or near the border at the time of entry; they are detained under § 1226(a), which allows a bond hearing. The government disagrees and has applied the mandatory reading nationwide since 2025. The circuits are split; our circuit tracker shows the Eleventh Circuit’s position. A ruling for the government would end bond hearings for a large share of detained people in Florida.

Blanche v. Ozurumba: what counts as material support

The question presented: “An alien is removable and ineligible for various immigration benefits if he has provided material support to a terrorist organization. The question presented is whether, under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI), such support must advance the organization’s actual commission of terrorism to qualify for that bar.” The Fourth Circuit held that a man forced to cook for an armed group had not provided “material” support; the government argues the statute reaches any support. The bar has no duress exception in its text, and for people who fled armed groups in Colombia and elsewhere after being made to feed, house or pay them, the answer will decide whether the asylum door is open at all.

Genalo v. D. C.: pending

After Genalo v. Black, No. 25-886, was dismissed on September 11 on the parties’ joint stipulation — the government having conceded the case had become moot — the government filed a new petition in a Second Circuit detention case, asking the Court to hear it before the circuit rules. The response is due December 8. If granted, it may be argued alongside Rhoney.

Decisions in all of these are expected by the end of June 2027. Until then, the law in the Eleventh Circuit is what it was yesterday — but anyone detained without a bond hearing, or facing a material-support finding, should know that the governing rule is now under review and that the record in their case should be built to survive either outcome.

This article is general legal information about pending Supreme Court cases, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The law described may change when the Court rules. Consult a qualified immigration attorney about your own case. This website is attorney advertising.