How long can the government keep someone locked up without letting a judge weigh in? That’s the question every immigration custody attorney has been watching closely this year. And it’s still open. The Supreme Court had a chance to settle it, then dropped the case entirely. Meanwhile, a fresh ruling out of the Fourth Circuit just made things even more complicated. Here’s what actually happened, and why it matters if you or someone you know is caught up in this.
Why the Supreme Court Dismissed Genalo v. Black
The Court pulled Genalo v. Black off its docket after learning that New York Governor Kathy Hochul had pardoned one of the two men whose cases made up the dispute. That pardon didn’t just help him personally. It pulled the legal rug out from under the whole case.
Here’s how it played out:
- Keisy Guerrero Mariano, a lawful permanent resident, sat in detention for 21 months without ever getting a bond hearing.
- His removal case hinged entirely on a single 2015 conviction for second-degree assault.
- On August 28, 2026, Hochul wiped that conviction out with a full pardon.
- The pardon eliminated the conviction underlying the removal charge and mandatory detention at issue in this case. Mariano’s lawyers argued that this made his habeas challenge moot, and the government agreed.
- Both his legal team and the Trump administration asked the Court to dismiss it under Rule 46.1.
Once everyone agreed dismissal made sense, the Court let it go. But don’t mistake this for the government backing down. Solicitor General D. John Sauer made it clear they’re not done, saying the administration plans to find another case, maybe out of the Second Circuit, to bring the same fight back during the October 2026 term.
What Genalo v. Black Was About
The case grew out of two lawful permanent residents who spent months, or in one case nearly two years, detained without anyone in a courtroom ever asking whether that detention was justified.
| Detainee | Length of detention | Bond hearing given? |
| Carol Williams Black | 7 months | No |
| Keisy Guerrero Mariano | 21 months | No |
Back in May 2024, the Second Circuit had already ruled on this. It found that mandatory immigration detention 2026 practices under Section 1226 (c), when they stretch on indefinitely with no bond hearing, cross a constitutional line. The court rejected a fixed deadline, but treated detention beyond six months as an important factor when deciding whether detention had become unreasonably prolonged. In Black’s case, once the detention was found to be unreasonably prolonged, the government had to justify continued detention by clear and convincing evidence.
That ruling still stands in New York, Connecticut, and Vermont. It’s also exactly what the Trump administration was trying to undo when it took the fight to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court Did Not Rule on Mandatory Immigration Detention
Here’s the part that’s easy to gloss over: the Supreme Court never actually decided anything here. No ruling on the merits. Just a dismissal, because the case became moot before the justices got the chance.
So where does that leave things?
- The Second Circuit’s 2024 ruling is still good law.
- There’s still no nationwide answer on when mandatory detention under Section 1226(c) becomes unconstitutional.
- The government isn’t giving up, and it’s already looking for a new case to carry the fight forward.
In other words, nobody won here. The case just disappeared before it could be decided.
Fourth Circuit Rejects Detention Without Bond Hearings
While Genalo v. Black grabbed headlines, something else was unfolding in the Fourth Circuit, the appeals court that covers Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, and the Carolinas.
In Lopez Garcia v. Guadian, a divided panel rejected DHS’s attempt to apply no-bond detention to people who’d been living in the U.S. interior for years, not people showing up at the border. The policy stretched Section 235(b), a rule meant for people arriving at ports of entry, and tried to apply it to anyone who’d ever entered without inspection, no matter how long ago.
The court sided with the two men who challenged it, Oscar Lopez Garcia and Juan Jose Rivera, both longtime U.S. residents with no allegations of danger or flight risk. The Fourth Circuit held that Section 1226, rather than Section 1225(b)(2)(A), governed people in their circumstances, allowing them to seek the bond process available under Section 1226(a). That placed the Fourth Circuit alongside eight other federal appeals courts that had rejected the government’s broader Section 1225 interpretation for similarly situated long-term interior residents.
What the Growing Circuit Split Means for Immigration Detention
So where does someone actually stand? It depends almost entirely on geography right now.
Circuits that have rejected no-bond detention for long-term interior residents:
- Second Circuit
- Third Circuit
- Fourth Circuit
- Sixth Circuit
- A handful of others, bringing the total to nine so far
Circuits still allowing broader mandatory detention:
- Fifth Circuit
- Eighth Circuit
Here’s the catch. The circuit split means similarly situated detainees may face different legal rules depending on the federal jurisdiction involved. A transfer can affect where a habeas challenge must be filed and which federal appellate precedent may become relevant, so current detention location should be confirmed.
That kind of unevenness will probably eventually force the Supreme Court to take up immigration detention-without-bond hearing questions again, likely sooner rather than later.
What This Means for Detained Immigrants in Virginia
Virginia sits inside the Fourth Circuit, so the Lopez-Garcia v. Guadian ruling applies here directly, not as some abstract legal development elsewhere.
- DHS can no longer lean on the rejected Section 235(b) reinterpretation to detain long-term interior residents without any hearing.
- People whose detention falls under Section 1226(a) generally have access to the bond process before an immigration judge, although release is not guaranteed.
- Worth noting: this is a separate legal track from the Second Circuit’s Section 1226 (c) ruling. It doesn’t bind Virginia courts directly, but it reflects the same underlying due process concerns.
None of this promises a particular outcome. Every case turns on its own facts, including criminal history, and how ICE classifies the detention.
Can a Detained Immigrant Still Seek a Bond Hearing?
Often, yes. But a few things shape the answer:
- Where the detention is happening, the applicable federal circuit can materially affect which detention rules and legal arguments are available.
- What kind of detention it is. Border-arrival cases are treated differently from cases involving people who’ve lived here for years.
- Whether there’s been a transfer. A transfer can change the relevant habeas jurisdiction and may affect which appellate precedent applies.
- Which statute applies. Section 1226(c) and Section 235(b) raise related, but distinct, legal arguments.
This area of law is moving fast, and unevenly. A case that looked settled a few months back might look totally different now.
What Legal Options May Be Available to Challenge Immigration Detention
If you’re trying to figure out next steps, an attorney, including someone offering legal help in Washington, DC, can typically walk through a few paths:
- Habeas corpus petitions to challenge detention that’s dragged on too long without a hearing.
- Bond hearing requests before an immigration judge, where the circuit’s case law supports it.
- Individualized arguments around community ties, employment, or lack of criminal history, even in circuits where the law is less favorable overall.
- Watching for transfers, since a move can quietly shift which rules apply to the case.
There’s no one-size-fits-all answer here. What works depends heavily on the specific facts and where the case is being heard.
What Detained Immigrants and Their Families Should Do Now
- Figure out exactly where the person is being held right now. Transfers happen, and they change everything.
- Start pulling together proof of community ties: how long they’ve lived here, family connections, work history.
- Note whether the detention is tied to a criminal ground under Section 1226(c) or an entry classification under Section 235(b).
- Talk to an immigration attorney as soon as possible. Deadlines in these cases move fast, and so does the law itself.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did the Supreme Court rule on immigration detention in Genalo v. Black?
No, it didn’t. The Court dismissed the case as moot once Keisy Guerrero Mariano’s pardon wiped out the basis for his removal. The Court did not rule on mandatory detention or bond-hearing rights.
Why was Genalo v. Black dismissed?
Governor Hochul pardoned Mariano’s 2015 assault conviction, which had been the sole reason for his removal case. Once that conviction no longer applied, both sides agreed the case was moot and asked the Court to dismiss it.
Can an immigrant detained by ICE request a bond hearing?
It depends on where they’re held and why. In the Fourth Circuit, Lopez Garcia v. Guadian supports access to the Section 1226(a) bond process for certain long-term interior residents who fall within the ruling’s scope. In the Fifth Circuit, the government has more room to detain without a bond hearing.
Can mandatory immigration detention be challenged?
Possibly, depending on the statute governing detention, the federal circuit, and the facts of the case. Available options may include a bond request or a federal habeas petition.
Does the Fourth Circuit ruling affect immigrants detained in Virginia?
Yes. Virginia is within the Fourth Circuit, so Lopez Garcia v. Guadian is controlling precedent for cases within its scope. The ruling limits the government’s ability to place certain long-term interior residents under Section 1225(b)(2)(A) rather than the bond framework available under Section 1226.
What can I do if ICE detains my family member?
Start by confirming exactly where they’re being held. Then gather records showing community ties and immigration history, and speak with an attorney soon, since the rules can shift quickly.
Disclaimer: The information provided in this blog post is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this post does not create an attorney-client relationship. Immigration laws and USCIS procedures change frequently; please consult with a qualified immigration attorney regarding your specific case.
