Source: Fox News
Summary
A Supreme Court case, Genalo v. D.C., could impact how noncitizens with criminal records are treated during deportation proceedings. The Trump administration is asking the court to review a Second Circuit ruling that requires bond hearings when detention becomes unreasonably prolonged. Legal experts warn this could make it harder for the government to keep certain detainees in custody. The case involves a Dominican citizen with multiple criminal convictions who has been detained by ICE. The government argues that the ruling could allow some detainees to avoid deportation by dragging out their cases. The Supreme Court has not yet agreed to hear the case.
Our Reading
As expected, the matter has reached another stage.
The government argues that criminal aliens should stay detained.
The court is being asked to decide who must prove danger or flight risk.
Detainees with long records are seen as a risk to public safety.
The process feels like a repeat of past immigration battles.
Author: Evan Null
Supreme Court Battle Over Noncitizens’ Bond Rights
The Supreme Court is considering a case that could affect how noncitizens with criminal records are treated during deportation proceedings. The Trump administration is asking the court to review a Second Circuit ruling that requires bond hearings when detention becomes unreasonably prolonged. Legal experts warn this could make it harder for the government to keep certain detainees in custody. The case involves a Dominican citizen with multiple criminal convictions who has been detained by ICE.
The government argues that the ruling could allow some detainees to avoid deportation by dragging out their cases. The Supreme Court has not yet agreed to hear the case. The dispute centers on a Second Circuit precedent requiring a bond hearing when mandatory immigration detention becomes “unreasonably prolonged.” At that hearing, the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the detainee poses a flight risk or danger to the community.
Chad Mizelle, a former Justice Department official, said the implications extend beyond immigration law. He argued that Congress imposed mandatory detention on certain noncitizens with criminal records to keep them detained during removal proceedings. The man at the center of the administration’s latest petition, identified in court papers as D.C., is a 62-year-old Dominican citizen who illegally entered the United States and has four criminal convictions.
D.C. was charged with multiple drug offenses in 1997 and failed to appear for trial. He was convicted by a jury and sentenced in absentia to three to nine years in prison, but did not serve that sentence until 2024. In 2007, he was charged with possessing a forged instrument after presenting false identification to police and again failed to appear in court. In 2016, D.C. faced several charges stemming from a domestic dispute, including second-degree strangulation, third-degree assault, and acting in a manner to injure a child under 17.
D.C. was finally arrested on the outstanding warrant from his 1998 drug conviction in April 2024. After completing his state sentence in September 2025, ICE immediately detained him while his removal proceedings continued. The district court subsequently ordered that D.C. receive a bond hearing under binding Second Circuit precedent but denied his separate request for immediate release.
Legal Experts Warn of Public Safety Concerns
Legal experts warn that the Supreme Court’s decision could have significant implications for public safety. The government argues that the Second Circuit’s prolonged-detention rule could incentivize some detainees to drag out their cases long enough to seek bond. This could make it harder for the federal government to keep certain detainees behind bars. The man at the center of the administration’s latest petition, identified in court papers as D.C., is a 62-year-old Dominican citizen with four criminal convictions.
Chad Mizelle, chair of litigation at the America First Policy Institute, said the implications extend beyond immigration law. He argued that Congress imposed mandatory detention on certain noncitizens with criminal records to keep them detained during removal proceedings. The dispute centers on a Second Circuit precedent requiring a bond hearing when mandatory immigration detention becomes “unreasonably prolonged.” At that hearing, the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the detainee poses a flight risk or danger to the community.
Mizelle said the individuals in question are “the worst of the worst,” including those accused or convicted of murder, child rape, and grievous harm. He argued that releasing them could lead to further harm. The district court subsequently ordered that D.C. receive a bond hearing under binding Second Circuit precedent but denied his separate request for immediate release. The government is now asking the Supreme Court to take the case before the Second Circuit itself rules — an unusual procedure known as certiorari before judgment.
The administration turned to D.C.’s case after two other noncitizens at the center of the same legal fight saw their cases become moot. One, Carol Williams Black, had been detained for roughly seven months. His case became moot after he received a final order of removal and permanently left the United States. Black was convicted of sexually abusing a child in 2000. The Supreme Court therefore granted review in June only as to the second detainee, G.M.
G.M., a lawful permanent resident from the Dominican Republic, pleaded guilty to second-degree assault in May 2015 after being accused of attacking and robbing a man during a 2012 incident in New York City. He was sentenced to two years in prison and was released early on parole in December 2016 after serving 19 months. ICE arrested G.M. at his home on Oct. 5, 2020, and detained him for 21 months without a bond hearing while removal proceedings continued.
Supreme Court Case Faces New Challenges
The Supreme Court was scheduled to hear G.M.’s case on Oct. 13. But in late August, New York Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul granted G.M. a full and unconditional pardon for the assault conviction that had formed the basis for his deportation proceedings and mandatory detention. Solicitor General John Sauer agreed the case was moot, and the Supreme Court dismissed it Sept. 11 without ruling on the merits. The administration then identified D.C. as its replacement vehicle and asked the justices to hear the same constitutional questions this term.
Carrie Severino, president of Judicial Crisis Network (JCN), said the dispute is likely to affect many similar immigration cases nationwide. She said the issue is not only about D.C., the criminal Dominican national at issue in this case, but also about criminal aliens across the country. A victory by D.C. would impose new hurdles on the government, including additional hearings and use of resources, Severino said. She added that immigration cases, skipping out on showing up for court dates is incredibly common.
The case also raises questions about who must prove whether continued detention is necessary. The Second Circuit ruled that the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that a detainee should remain in custody. Michael Morley, a Florida State University law professor, said a Supreme Court ruling affirming the Second Circuit’s decision would make it harder for the government to detain this particular population of criminal aliens or terrorism-linked aliens.
He said there are going to be situations where the government is not able to show that a particular person is either likely to flee or poses a risk of danger and this dangerousness by a heightened or clear and convincing standard. Morley continued that these criminal aliens who are already subject to removal proceedings are more likely to be released into the community while those underlying removal proceedings continue to make their way slowly through the adjudicative process.
The Supreme Court has not yet agreed to hear D.C.’s case. The administration is asking the justices to take up Genalo v. D.C., a case involving a Dominican citizen with four criminal convictions who has been detained by ICE while fighting removal.
Political Implications and Public Safety Concerns
The Supreme Court case has drawn attention from political figures and legal experts. Chad Mizelle, a former Justice Department official, said the implications extend beyond immigration law. He argued that Congress imposed mandatory detention on certain noncitizens with criminal records to keep them detained during removal proceedings. The man at the center of the administration’s latest petition, identified in court papers as D.C., is a 62-year-old Dominican citizen with four criminal convictions.
Chad Mizelle, chair of litigation at the America First Policy Institute, said the implications extend beyond immigration law. He argued that Congress imposed mandatory detention on certain noncitizens with criminal records to keep them detained during removal proceedings. The dispute centers on a Second Circuit precedent requiring a bond hearing when mandatory immigration detention becomes “unreasonably prolonged.” At that hearing, the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the detainee poses a flight risk or danger to the community.
Mizelle said the individuals in question are “the worst of the worst,” including those accused or convicted of murder, child rape, and grievous harm. He argued that releasing them could lead to further harm. The district court subsequently ordered that D.C. receive a bond hearing under binding Second Circuit precedent but denied his separate request for immediate release. The government is now asking the Supreme Court to take the case before the Second Circuit itself rules — an unusual procedure known as certiorari before judgment.
The administration turned to D.C.’s case after two other noncitizens at the center of the same legal fight saw their cases become moot. One, Carol Williams Black, had been detained for roughly seven months. His case became moot after he received a final order of removal and permanently left the United States. Black was convicted of sexually abusing a child in 2000. The Supreme Court therefore granted review in June only as to the second detainee, G.M.
G.M., a lawful permanent resident from the Dominican Republic, pleaded guilty to second-degree assault in May 2015 after being accused of attacking and robbing a man during a 2012 incident in New York City. He was sentenced to two years in prison and was released early on parole in December 2016 after serving 19 months. ICE arrested G.M. at his home on Oct. 5, 2020, and detained him for 21 months without a bond hearing while removal proceedings continued.
Continued Legal and Political Challenges
The Supreme Court was scheduled to hear G.M.’s case on Oct. 13. But in late August, New York Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul granted G.M. a full and unconditional pardon for the assault conviction that had formed the basis for his deportation proceedings and mandatory detention. Solicitor General John Sauer agreed the case was moot, and the Supreme Court dismissed it Sept. 11 without ruling on the merits. The administration then identified D.C. as its replacement vehicle and asked the justices to hear the same constitutional questions this term.
Carrie Severino, president of Judicial Crisis Network (JCN), said the dispute is likely to affect many similar immigration cases nationwide. She said the issue is not only about D.C., the criminal Dominican national at issue in this case, but also about criminal aliens across the country. A victory by D.C. would impose new hurdles on the government, including additional hearings and use of resources, Severino said. She added that immigration cases, skipping out on showing up for court dates is incredibly common.
The case also raises questions about who must prove whether continued detention is necessary. The Second Circuit ruled that the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that a detainee should remain in custody. Michael Morley, a Florida State University law professor, said a Supreme Court ruling affirming the Second Circuit’s decision would make it harder for the government to detain this particular population of criminal aliens or terrorism-linked aliens.
He said there are going to be situations where the government is not able to show that a particular person is either likely to flee or poses a risk of danger and this dangerousness by a heightened or clear and convincing standard. Morley continued that these criminal aliens who are already subject to removal proceedings are more likely to be released into the community while those underlying removal proceedings continue to make their way slowly through the adjudicative process.
The Supreme Court has not yet agreed to hear D.C.’s case. The administration is asking the justices to take up Genalo v. D.C., a case involving a Dominican citizen with four criminal convictions who has been detained by ICE while fighting removal.
