The Trump administration is petitioning the Supreme Court to review a Second Circuit precedent that requires bond hearings for noncitizens with criminal records during prolonged immigration detention. Legal experts warn the outcome could determine whether the federal government must release certain detainees while their removal proceedings continue.
The dispute centers on the case of Genalo v. D.C., involving a 62-year-old Dominican citizen identified in court papers as D.C. According to court records, D.C. illegally entered the United States and has four criminal convictions. His record includes drug offenses from 1997, a forged instrument charge from 2007, and domestic violence-related charges from 2016. D.C. was arrested in April 2024 on an outstanding warrant and detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in September 2025 after completing his state sentence.
The administration argues that Congress imposed mandatory detention on specific noncitizens to keep them in custody during removal. Chad Mizelle, chair of litigation at the America First Policy Institute and former acting associate attorney general, stated that the Second Circuit’s rule could incentivize detainees to delay cases to seek bond. "We are talking about criminal aliens here," Mizelle said, citing individuals accused or convicted of aggravated felonies, including murder and child rape.
The Supreme Court originally granted review in June regarding two other noncitizens: Carol Williams Black and G.M. Black, who was convicted of sexually abusing a child in 2000, left the United States permanently after receiving a final order of removal, rendering his case moot. G.M., a lawful permanent resident from the Dominican Republic, pleaded guilty to second-degree assault in 2015 for a 2012 incident in New York City. He was detained by ICE in October 2020 for 21 months without a bond hearing.
In late August, New York Governor Kathy Hochul granted G.M. a full pardon for the assault conviction. Solicitor General John Sauer agreed the case was moot, and the Supreme Court dismissed it on September 11 without ruling on the merits. The administration subsequently identified D.C. as the replacement vehicle for the legal challenge, asking justices to hear the constitutional questions before the Second Circuit issues its final ruling.
Carrie Severino, president of Judicial Crisis Network, said the decision will impact similar immigration cases nationwide. "This is not a question that's only going to affect D.C.," Severino said. She noted that skipping court dates is common in immigration cases and argued against releasing individuals on bond based solely on their word that they will return.
The legal conflict also involves the burden of proof. The Second Circuit ruled that the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that a detainee poses a flight risk or danger to the community. Michael Morley, a law professor at Florida State University, explained that affirming this standard would make it harder for the government to detain criminal aliens or those linked to terrorism. Morley noted that under this heightened standard, the government may fail to demonstrate that specific individuals are flight risks or dangers.
The Supreme Court has not yet agreed to hear D.C.’s case.