Two ACLU-backed challenges to Trump asylum and detention curbs are the cases to watch: Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha on mandatory detention without bond hearings, and the RAICES challenge to the border asylum shutdown. The Supreme Court granted review in the detention case on Oct.
1, 2026, while the government is seeking review of the ACLU coalition win blocking the asylum ban. Asylum is a legal path for people who fear persecution to ask for protection in the United States. Bond hearings give detained people a chance to ask a judge for release while their case moves forward. These two cases will decide how much access remains to both.
Table of Contents
- Can the government detain people without a bond hearing?
- Can the president shut down asylum at the border?
- What did the Court already decide at ports of entry?
- Who is affected and what should families track?
Can the government detain people without a bond hearing?
The July 2025 policy at issue says anyone who entered without inspection must face detention without bond or due process. It applies regardless of years lived in the United States or family ties. The ACLU, NYCLU and Paul Dwyer challenged that reinterpretation in Rhoney. Lower courts have largely rejected the policy. According to the ACLU in its Oct.
1, 2026 press release, nine of ten district judges in thousands of habeas petitions and nine federal appeals courts ruled the reinterpretation illegal, including the Second Circuit in this case, as described in the ACLU comment on Supreme Court review. Habeas petitions are court filings that ask a judge to review unlawful detention. The Supreme Court will now decide whether that mandatory-detention reading stands. A ruling for the government would leave long-term residents detained without a hearing. A ruling for the challengers would restore access to bond hearings.
Can the president shut down asylum at the border?
The administration used an invasion proclamation under section 212(f) to close asylum at the border. On July 2, 2025, a federal court in Washington, D.C., blocked that effort in RAICES v. Mullin. According to the ACLU at the time, the court held the president cannot override asylum protections set by Congress, as reported in the ruling blocking the border asylum shutdown. The D.C. Circuit affirmed that win on April 24, 2026, in RAICES v.
Noem. It held Proclamation 10888 exceeds presidential authority and cannot bypass removal procedures in immigration law to deny asylum and withholding of removal. Withholding of removal is a related protection against return to likely persecution. That border case is now listed by the ACLU as a pending petition where the government seeks Supreme Court review. The coalition says the policy bars border applicants from even applying for asylum. The Court has not yet said whether it will hear it.
📨 Get Free Accountability Coverage Alerts
Free · No spam · Unsubscribe anytime
What did the Court already decide at ports of entry?
On June 25, 2026, the Court ruled 6-3 in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado that a person standing in Mexico has not arrived in the United States. That person therefore has no right to apply for asylum or inspection at that point. The decision reversed the Ninth Circuit, according to DHS in its statement on recent Supreme Court wins. That ruling is narrow.
It covers only seekers still outside the United States at ports of entry. Turnbacks there can continue under that decision. The broader RAICES ban is different. According to the National Governors Association in its summary of key 2025-2026 term decisions, the broader ban on asylum for people who crossed remains contested and stayed pending Supreme Court action. Readers should not treat Al Otro Lado as resolving that second fight.
Who is affected and what should families track?
The detention case affects people who entered without inspection and now face detention without bond. Years of residence, jobs, and U.S. citizen spouses or children do not change the policy as written.
Families in this group face longer separation without a hearing date. The asylum-ban case affects people who crossed the border and seek asylum or withholding. If the ban stays blocked, they can still apply. If the Court revives it, border applicants could be denied even the chance to apply.
- Identify which case matches your situation: detention without bond, or denial of an asylum application at the border.
- Save proof of entry history, residence, family ties, and any prior asylum filing.
- Ask a qualified immigration lawyer whether a habeas petition used in these cases fits your detention.
- Follow the Supreme Court docket for Rhoney and any order on the RAICES petition.
You Might Also Like
- Supreme Court Lets Trump Turn Away Asylum Seekers at the Border
- How the Remain in Mexico Ruling Affects Trump Asylum Cases
- What Documents Do You Need to File a Trump Asylum Appeal?