A Supreme Court battle over whether certain noncitizens with criminal records are entitled to bond hearings during lengthy deportation proceedings could become a public safety concern by making it harder for the federal government to keep some detainees behind bars, legal experts warn.

The Trump administration is asking the justices to take up Genalo v. D.C., a case involving a Dominican citizen with four criminal convictions who has been detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement while fighting removal.

The dispute centers on a Second Circuit precedent requiring a bond hearing when mandatory immigration detention becomes "unreasonably prolonged." At that hearing, the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the detainee poses a flight risk or danger to the community.

MACHETE-WIELDING MS-13 GANGSTER WANTED FOR MURDER WALKS FREE AFTER BIDEN-APPOINTED JUDGE RELEASES HIM: DHS 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 the implications extend beyond immigration law. "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."

"So these are the worst of the worst individuals," Mizelle continued. "Do we want those individuals walking the streets, re-committing, harming other individuals?" Mizelle argued 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.

DOJ MOVES TO STRIP CITIZENSHIP FROM 17 PEOPLE ACCUSED OF HIDING DISTURBING CRIMES The man at the center of the administration’s latest petition, identified in court papers as D.C., is a 62-year-old Dominican citizen who illegally entered the United States and has four criminal convictions, according to court records.

In 1997, D.C. 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 1997, D.C. 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, D.C. faced several charges stemming 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 also resolved his earlier forged-instrument case with a guilty plea. Later that year, he pleaded guilty to criminal contempt.

D.C. was finally arrested on the outstanding warrant from his 1998 drug conviction in April 2024. After completing his state sentence in September 2025, ICE immediately detained him while his removal proceedings continued.

FEDERAL APPEALS COURT COMPARES TRUMP MIGRANT DETENTION POLICY TO JAPANESE AMERICAN INTERNMENT The district court subsequently ordered that D.C. 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. 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.

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. TRUMP’S FIGHT OVER RARELY USED 18TH-CENTURY DEPORTATION LAW LIVES ON IN LATEST COURT CLASH 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. FEDERAL JUDGE TIES ICE AGENTS' HANDS WITH RULING ON WARRANTLESS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ARRESTS Carrie Severino, president of Judicial Crisis Network (JCN), 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, Severino said.

"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, Severino said. "As we know, immigration cases, skipping out on showing up for court dates is incredibly common," she added. "This is not something that I think the court ought to be granting on a regular basis that they'd be letting people out on bond simply on their word that they're going to be coming back when they know that they are likely to be removed." The case also raises questions about who must prove whether continued detention is necessary. The Second Circuit ruled that the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that a detainee should remain in custody. "And so, if the Supreme Court winds up affirming what the Second Circuit held, that means it's going to be harder for the government to be able to detain this particular population of criminal aliens or terrorism-linked aliens," Florida State University law professor Michael Morley told Fox News Digital. "There are going to be situations where the government is not able to show that a particular person is either likely to flee or poses a risk of danger and this dangerousness by a heightened or clear and convincing standard." "It means that these criminal aliens who are already subject to removal proceedings are more likely to be released into the community while those underlying removal proceedings continue to make their way slowly through the adjudicative process," Morley continued. The Supreme Court has not yet agreed to hear D.C.’s case.