U.S. Supreme Court to review constitutionality of prolonged immigrant detentions

In a move that could reshape the government’s enforcement toolbox, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed on June 15 to hear the Trump administration’s appeal in G.M. v. Garland, a case that asks whether non-citizens with final removal orders can be incarcerated for many months without the chance to ask a judge for bond. At issue is the Second Circuit’s 2025 decision finding that due-process rights are violated when detention becomes “unreasonably prolonged.” The court stopped short of setting a bright-line six-month rule, but did require the government to justify continued custody at a bond hearing once detention drags on. The Biden and now Trump administrations insist that mandatory detention language in the Immigration and Nationality Act leaves no room for such hearings. The underlying facts are sympathetic to neither side. One respondent, a lawful-permanent-resident from Jamaica, had been convicted of sexually abusing a child; the second, a Dominican green-card holder, pleaded guilty to assault. Both men ultimately prevailed in habeas actions after seven and twenty-one months in custody, respectively, but the government argues the Constitution does not mandate an individualized hearing unless Congress clearly said so. Business immigration lawyers are watching closely. ICE has invoked the mandatory-detention statute against foreign executives arrested for white-collar crimes and against work-visa holders accused of overstaying; without predictable bond rules, corporate global-mobility teams face heightened employee-relocation risk. A ruling that eliminates the due-process safety valve would give ICE broader leverage in removal cases and increase pressure on companies to conduct deeper criminal-background vetting before initiating U.S. transfers. The Court will hear arguments in October 2026, meaning a decision is unlikely before spring 2027. In the meantime, employers should review crisis-management protocols, ensure foreign staff understand local criminal laws, and prepare contingency plans for protracted ICE custody. If the administration prevails, lengthy detention could become a negotiating chip in voluntary-departure discussions, adding yet another layer of complexity to cross-border workforce planning.