Cases compared
Matthew Putra, Director of the Detroit Field Office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement v. Juan Manuel Lopez-Campos vs. Tamer S. Wassily, et al., Petitioners v. Todd Blanche, Attorney General vs. Kenneth Genalo, Director of the New York Field Office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement v. Carol Williams Black
Immigration cases on the Supreme Court docket, side by side.
No. 25-1415No. 25-842No. 25-886
Side by side
| Fact | Matthew Putra, Director of the Detroit Field Office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement v. Juan Manuel Lopez-Campos | Tamer S. Wassily, et al., Petitioners v. Todd Blanche, Attorney General | Kenneth Genalo, Director of the New York Field Office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement v. Carol Williams Black |
|---|---|---|---|
| Docket | 25-1415 | 25-842 | 25-886 |
| Status | Before Arguments | Before Arguments | Dismissed |
| Date | October Term 2025 (2025–2026) | Argued Nov 30, 2026 | October Term 2025 (2025–2026) |
| Question presented | 1. Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) mandates the detention pending removal proceedings of aliens who, like respondents, are present in the United States without having been admitted? 2. Whether detaining respondents without a bond hearing during their removal proceedings comports with due process? | Whether noncitizens who were "granted asylum," but whose asylum was later terminated, are eligible for adjustment to LPR status under Section 1159(b) (as the Fifth Circuit held), or are categorically ineligible (as the Second and Fourth Circuits held)? | 1. Whether G.M.'s case is now moot. 2. Whether there is a point at which an alien's detention under Section 1226(c), pending a decision on whether he is to be removed, becomes "unreasonably prolonged," such that due process requires a bond hearing. 3. If so, whether, in such a bond hearing, due process requires placing the burden on the government to justify the alien's continued detention by clear and convincing evidence. |
| Summary | This pending case concerns whether federal immigration law requires immigration officials to detain certain noncitizens who are in the United States without formal admission while their removal cases are pending. It also asks whether holding those individuals without a bond hearing during those proceedings violates the Constitution's due process guarantee. | The Court will decide whether a noncitizen whose asylum was later terminated can still seek lawful permanent resident status based on having previously been granted asylum. The case concerns a split among federal appeals courts over the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1159(b). | The case concerned whether G.M.’s challenge to his immigration detention remained a live dispute. The Supreme Court dismissed the case under Rule 46 and did not decide the merits of the detention or bond-hearing issues. |
Relationship
- Shared issue
- Immigration
- Why compared
- Reviewed Immigration tags connect these current-term public cases.
Related
Sources
- Built from reviewed issue tags and official docket records. Status lines and questions presented come from the tracked case data.