The Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether noncitizens with criminal convictions who are fighting deportation are entitled to bond hearings after being held in immigration detention for extended periods, a case that legal experts say could reshape enforcement nationwide.
The Trump administration has petitioned the justices to hear Genalo v. D.C., involving a 62-year-old Dominican citizen identified in court papers as D.C. who has four criminal convictions and has been detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement while his removal case proceeds.
At issue is a Second Circuit precedent requiring a bond hearing once mandatory immigration detention becomes “unreasonably prolonged.” Under that rule, the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that a detainee poses a flight risk or danger to the community before he can be held further without bond.
The Case at the Center
Court records show D.C. was charged in 1997 with multiple drug offenses, including selling and possessing a controlled substance. He failed to appear for trial, 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 charges from a domestic dispute, including second-degree strangulation, third-degree assault and acting in a manner to injure a child under 17. He pleaded guilty to criminal obstruction of breathing or blood circulation and resolved the earlier forged-instrument case with a guilty plea. Later that year he pleaded guilty to criminal contempt.
He was arrested in April 2024 on the outstanding warrant from his 1998 drug conviction. After completing his state sentence in September 2025, ICE detained him as his removal proceedings continued. A district court ordered that he receive a bond hearing under the Second Circuit’s precedent but denied his separate request for immediate release. The administration is now asking the Supreme Court to take up the case before the Second Circuit itself rules, an unusual step known as certiorari before judgment.
How the Case Got Here
The administration turned to D.C.’s case after two other detainees involved in the same legal fight saw their cases become moot. Carol Williams Black, detained roughly seven months and convicted of sexually abusing a child in 2000, received a final order of removal and left the country. The Supreme Court then granted review only as to a second detainee, G.M., a lawful permanent resident from the Dominican Republic who pleaded guilty in 2015 to second-degree assault after a 2012 robbery and was detained by ICE for 21 months without a bond hearing.
G.M.’s case was scheduled for oral argument Oct. 13, but in late August New York Gov. Kathy Hochul granted him a full and unconditional pardon for the conviction underlying his deportation case. 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 substituted D.C.’s case to keep the underlying constitutional questions before the court this term.
What’s at Stake
Chad Mizelle, chair of litigation at the America First Policy Institute and a former acting associate attorney general and Justice Department chief of staff, argued Congress imposed mandatory detention on certain noncitizens with criminal records specifically to keep them in custody during removal proceedings.
“We are talking about criminal aliens here,” Mizelle said. “Those are individuals who have been accused of or convicted of an aggravated felony. Accused or convicted of murder. Accused or convicted of child rape. Accused or convicted of grievous harm upon another human being.”
Mizelle said the Second Circuit’s prolonged-detention rule could give some detainees an incentive to drag out their cases long enough to become eligible for a bond hearing.
Carrie Severino, president of the Judicial Crisis Network, said the outcome will reach well beyond this single case. “This is not a question that’s only going to affect D.C., the criminal Dominican national at issue in this case,” she said. “This is an issue that’s going to affect criminal aliens across the country.”
Severino also raised concerns about the practicality of bond in immigration proceedings. “As we know, immigration cases, skipping out on showing up for court dates is incredibly common,” she said. “This is not something that I think the court ought to be granting on a regular basis that they’d be letting people out on bond simply on their word that they’re going to be coming back when they know that they are likely to be removed.”
Florida State University law professor Michael Morley said the clear-and-convincing standard the Second Circuit set could make it substantially harder for the government to justify continued detention. “If the Supreme Court winds up affirming what the Second Circuit held, that means it’s going to be harder for the government to be able to detain this particular population of criminal aliens or terrorism-linked aliens,” Morley 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.”
“It means 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,” Morley added.
The Supreme Court has not yet agreed to hear D.C.’s case.
Add comment