The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to take up a case that could reshape how the federal government detains noncitizens with criminal records during deportation proceedings, warning that a ruling against it could put dangerous individuals back on the streets. The case, Genalo v. D.C., centers on a Second Circuit precedent that requires bond hearings when mandatory immigration detention becomes «unreasonably prolonged.» At such hearings, the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the detainee poses a flight risk or a danger to the community.
The dispute involves a 62-year-old Dominican citizen identified in court papers as D.C., who illegally entered the United States and has four criminal convictions. In 1997, he was charged 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, he faced several 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.
D.C. was finally arrested on an outstanding warrant from his 1998 drug conviction in April 2024. After completing his state sentence in September 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement immediately detained him while his removal proceedings continued. A district court then ordered that he receive a bond hearing under binding Second Circuit precedent but denied his separate request for immediate release. The government is now asking the Supreme Court to take the case before the Second Circuit itself rules, an unusual procedure known as certiorari before judgment.
Legal experts warn that the implications extend well beyond immigration law. Chad Mizelle, chair of litigation at the America First Policy Institute and a former acting associate attorney general and Justice Department chief of staff, told Fox News Digital that the individuals at issue are «the worst of the worst.» «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.» He argued that Congress imposed mandatory detention on certain noncitizens with criminal records to keep them detained during removal proceedings, while the Second Circuit’s prolonged-detention rule could incentivize some detainees to drag out their cases long enough to seek bond.
The administration turned to D.C.’s case after two other noncitizens at the center of the same legal fight saw their cases become moot. One, Carol Williams Black, had been detained for roughly seven months. His case became moot after he received a final order of removal and permanently left the United States. Black was convicted of sexually abusing a child in 2000. The Supreme Court therefore granted review in June only as to the second detainee, G.M. G.M., a lawful permanent resident from the Dominican Republic, pleaded guilty to second-degree assault in May 2015 after being accused of attacking and robbing a man during a 2012 incident in New York City. He was sentenced to two years in prison and was released early on parole in December 2016 after serving 19 months. ICE arrested G.M. at his home on Oct. 5, 2020, and detained him for 21 months without a bond hearing while removal proceedings continued.
The Supreme Court was scheduled to hear his case Oct. 13. But in late August, New York Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul granted G.M. a full and unconditional pardon for the assault conviction that had formed the basis for his deportation proceedings and mandatory detention. 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 identified D.C. as its replacement vehicle and asked the justices to hear the same constitutional questions this term.
Carrie Severino, president of Judicial Crisis Network, said the dispute is likely to affect many similar immigration cases nationwide. «This is not a question that’s only going to affect D.C., the criminal Dominican national at issue in this case,» Severino told Fox News Digital. «This is an issue that’s going to affect criminal aliens across the country.» A victory by D.C. would impose new hurdles on the government, including additional hearings and use of resources, according to the warnings from legal experts.