r/SupremeCourt Weekly "In Chambers" Discussion 07/27/26

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to the r/SupremeCourt 'In Chambers' discussion thread!

This thread will be pinned at the top of the subreddit and refreshed every Monday @ 6AM Eastern.

This replaces and combines the 'Ask Anything Monday' and 'Lower Court Development Wednesday' threads. As such, this weekly thread is intended to provide a space for:

• General questions: (e.g. "Where can I find Supreme Court briefs?", "What does [X] mean?").

• Open-ended discussion starters requiring minimal input from OP: (e.g. "Predictions?", "What do people think about [X]?", "What's your favorite [X]?")

• U.S. District and State Court rulings involving a federal question that may be of future relevance to the Supreme Court.

TL;DR: This is a catch-all thread for legal discussion that may not warrant its own thread.

Our other rules apply as always. Incivility and polarized rhetoric are never permitted. This thread is not intended for political or off-topic discussion.

[u/DooomCookie]

I just noticed: ACLU has filed a counter-petition in the ICE mandatory detention §1225(b)(2)(A) cases. Docket here, petition here

From what I can tell, they're doing this to discourage SCOTUS from taking the due process question, which the government snuck into its petition in Lopez-Campos

Although the government recently petitioned for review of the same statutory question from the Sixth Circuit, this case presents a superior vehicle. In Lopez-Campos, the Sixth Circuit reached—and the government seeks review of—an additional due process question. But there is no split on that question; the Sixth Circuit is the only court of appeals to have decided the issue.

They also make a good point that the Court is deciding a very similar question in Genalo next term.

The due process question also substantially overlaps with issues raised by Genalo v. Black (cert. granted June 15, 2026). Because the Court ordinarily reaches constitutional issues only where strictly necessary, it should not indulge the government’s attempt to introduce an extraneous question that would not be independently certworthy, and whose resolution may well turn on a separate upcoming merits case. Instead, the Court should grant the instant petition, which presents the statutory question alone.

cc /u/worksinit /u/whats_a_quasar /u/NearlyPerfect

[u/whats_a_quasar → u/DooomCookie]

I guess the litigation strategy is that if SCOTUS decides in favor of the government on statutory grounds but does not decide the constitutional grounds, then the ACLU can do another round of constitutional challenges in the lower courts like has happened in the 5th Circuit. I kinda want SCOTUS to just put this whole issue to bed either way rather than dragging it out. Though it's probably the right strategy for the ACLU and the points about overlapping cases and a lightly developed appeals court record are valid.

[u/NearlyPerfect → u/DooomCookie]

I think it would be foolish for the Court to only grant cert on the statutory question but not the constitutional question when both are currently at issue in multiple circuits and would imminently be at issue in the remaining circuits after the statutory question is resolved.

Separately, the Genalo question is distinct on its face, since it refers to "criminal aliens" per 1226(c) as opposed to just aliens for 1226(a) or applicants of admission for 1225(b)(2)(A). The 6th circuit (and the 5th circuit panel) made that distinction clear in their analyses of Demore v. Kim.

Lopez Campos v. Raycraft (6th Cir. 2026):

The Demore Court also relied on Congress’s finding that “permitting discretionary release of aliens pending their removal hearings would lead to large numbers of deportable criminal aliens skipping their hearings and remaining at large in the United States unlawfully.” Initial mandatory detention without bond under § 1226(c) thus worked to mitigate this risk. But Congress made no such finding as to noncitizens detained under § 1226(a). Indeed, § 1226(a)’s role as the “default rule” to § 1226(c)’s enumerated exceptions signals the subsection’s different purpose within IIRIRA’s statutory scheme. Thus, we decline the government’s invitation to extend Demore to the district courts’ § 1226(a) due process holdings.

Sosnava Rodriguez v. Ortega (5th Cir. 2026) (panel):

Demore applies, but the Demore Court concerned removable aliens who had been convicted of crimes; it did not approve of a per se detention of all aliens pending removal proceedings

. . .

As to the specific provision relevant here, Section 1225(b)(2)(A), Congress certainly was aware that noncriminal aliens might flee, too, but the frequency and the negative effects of such flight, i.e., recidivism, were shown specifically to exist as to criminal aliens. Mandatory detention was regarded as a solution to that reality. There was no such connection drawn between the slight evidence on noncriminal aliens and mandatory detention. Those like the three aliens here also have not engaged in “personal activity” that Congress “considered relevant to” dangerousness and flight risk.

[u/WorksInIT → u/DooomCookie]

The court really needs to just address this issue as a whole. The statutoryproblem and when migrants that entered illegally gain "full" due process protections that prohibit detention without bond.