Supreme Court to Decide if Green Card Holders Can Be Detained Indefinitely During Deportation Fights

On Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a Trump administration appeal that could grant the federal government sweeping authority to indefinitely detain legal permanent residents—including green card holders—while they fight deportation. The justices' decision to take up the case sets the stage for a major constitutional showdown over the limits of civil detention and the due process rights of noncitizens.[1][2]

The legal battle centers on two longtime U.S. residents, Keisy G.M. and Carol Williams Black, who were held by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for 21 months and seven months, respectively. Both men held permanent legal status but were placed in mandatory detention under a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act that targets noncitizens with past criminal convictions.[2][8]

Under Section 1226(c) of the immigration code, the government is directed to detain noncitizens who have committed "aggravated felonies" while their removal proceedings are adjudicated. However, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York previously ruled in favor of the two men, declaring that their "prolonged detention" became unconstitutional because they were denied bond hearings to assess whether they actually posed a flight risk or a danger to public safety.[1][2]

In its petition to the high court, the Justice Department argued that the appellate ruling undermines federal immigration law. Government lawyers contend that Congress explicitly mandated the detention of criminal aliens to ensure they do not abscond or re-offend during the months or years it can take to resolve their claims in heavily backlogged immigration courts.[1][8]

The case forces the Supreme Court to answer a constitutional question it deliberately left open eight years ago. In the 2018 case Jennings v. Rodriguez, the justices ruled that federal statutes do not inherently guarantee periodic bond hearings for detained immigrants. However, they stopped short of deciding whether an "unreasonably prolonged" detention without a hearing violates the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause—a void that has since led to conflicting rulings across lower federal courts.[2]

Civil liberties organizations and immigrant rights advocates are urging the court to uphold the 2nd Circuit's decision. Groups like the American Civil Liberties Union argue that civil detention is not meant to be punitive, and that holding individuals indefinitely without an individualized risk assessment effectively punishes them a second time for crimes they have already served sentences for.[1][6]

The Supreme Court's docket addition arrives during a massive month for federal immigration policy. Just last week, President Trump signed the "Secure America Act," a landmark $70 billion legislative package that fully funds the administration's border security and deportation apparatus through the end of his term in 2029.[4][5]

The legislation allocates $38 billion directly to ICE and $26 billion to Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Its passage on June 10 ended a historic 75-day partial shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security, which had been triggered by a bitter partisan standoff over the administration's intensive interior enforcement campaigns.[4][5]

Legal and policy analysts note that the timing of the Supreme Court case could synergize powerfully with the new funding. If the justices rule in favor of the administration this fall, ICE will possess both the unchecked legal authority to hold thousands of immigrants indefinitely and the historic financial resources required to rapidly expand its network of detention centers.[4][7]

The high court will hear oral arguments for the detention case when its next term begins in the fall, with a final decision expected in early 2027. Until then, the fate of thousands of green card holders currently navigating the backlogged immigration court system remains in a precarious legal limbo.[2][3]