The Supreme Court dismisses immigration case that had been slated for argument in October after the U.S. solicitor general informed the court the dispute is now moot and the challenger concurred with removing it from the oral argument calendar.
In Genalo v. Black, the justices were prepared to consider whether, and when, certain noncitizens are entitled to a bond hearing during prolonged detention, and what the government must establish to justify continued custody if a hearing is required. In a letter to Clerk of the Court Scott Harris, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer said the Justice Department intends to return the issue to the court soon through a new petition for review.
When Sauer asked the court to hear Genalo v. Black, the case centered on two men detained under Section 1226(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which mandates detention of noncitizens, including lawful permanent residents, who have committed specified crimes while removal proceedings are pending. Emphasizing that Section 1226(c) “expressly prohibits” release except on narrow witness-protection grounds, Sauer urged review of a U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruling that the men’s detention had become so prolonged that they were entitled to a bond hearing under the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause.
Sauer cited Jennings v. Rodriguez, the 2018 decision holding that Section 1226(c) does not itself require periodic bond hearings. The court in Jennings considered, but did not resolve, whether due process could demand such hearings during extended detention. Sauer asked the justices to take Genalo v. Black to answer that unresolved constitutional question.
While the government’s petition was pending, one of the men, Carol Williams Black, left the United States and told the court he had no intention of returning. The parties agreed his claim was moot. When the court granted review on June 15, it limited the case to the remaining petitioner, identified as Keisy G.M., who had been detained for 21 months by immigration authorities after an assault conviction. The court nonetheless asked the parties to brief whether G.M.’s claim also had become moot, as his lawyers had argued when opposing review.
Initially, the mootness inquiry turned on G.M.’s release from custody in 2022. In late August, it took on new significance after New York Gov. Kathy Hochul granted G.M. a pardon for the assault conviction. As a result, G.M. is no longer deportable or subject to mandatory detention under Section 1226(c), ACLU National Legal Director Cecillia Wang wrote in G.M.’s merits brief, urging the court to find the case moot.
In his Friday letter, Sauer likewise pointed to the pardon and stated the government agrees with G.M. that his habeas case is now moot. Sauer and Wang also filed a joint stipulation to dismiss.
Later Friday, the court formally dismissed the case, which had been scheduled for argument on Tuesday, Oct. 13. The removal leaves only one argument currently set for that date and six total arguments for the October sitting.
Supreme Court dismisses immigration case and potential next steps
The solicitor general indicated the Justice Department plans to return the broader question of due process and bond hearings in prolonged immigration detentions to the court in a future petition, seeking clarity that Jennings left unresolved.
The solicitor general’s decision to pursue a new petition aligns with other recent matters that have brought the Supreme Court back into recurring legal disputes over federal authority and individual rights. The outcome of any future case could shape how lower courts handle extended immigration detention and the availability of bond hearings for noncitizens.
Immigration advocates, including the American Civil Liberties Union, are watching closely for the next case that might allow the justices to address the unresolved constitutional questions left by Jennings and now by the dismissal of Genalo v. Black.