The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear an appeal from the Trump administration concerning the indefinite detention of noncitizens with criminal convictions while they contest deportation proceedings. The case, scheduled for argument this fall, could expand federal authority to detain immigrants—including lawful permanent residents—who have criminal records without providing bond hearings.

The government contends that federal immigration laws mandate deportation of noncitizens convicted of aggravated felonies and permit the continued detention of such individuals throughout the often lengthy deportation process. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that those facing removal have no constitutional right to a bond hearing assessing whether they pose a flight risk or danger to the community, emphasizing that detention is mandatory based solely on aggravated felony convictions.

However, courts across the country have reached differing conclusions. Last year, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York ruled that the prolonged detention of two green card holders convicted of assault—classified as aggravated felonies—without bond hearings violated constitutional protections. The appeals court majority described such extended detention without an opportunity for release as “unreasonably prolonged” and unconstitutional.

The issue revisits a longstanding legal debate. About eight years ago, the Supreme Court ruled narrowly that immigration laws do not guarantee bond hearings for detainees facing deportation due to criminal conduct, but the justices did not address whether constitutional due process protections might require bond hearings in some cases. That unresolved question lies at the heart of the current dispute.

Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the two men involved in the 2nd Circuit case argued against the government’s position, contending that the administration’s stance effectively denies constitutional rights to a vulnerable group of detainees. The ACLU warned that the government’s argument rejects a “bedrock principle” of due process: that individuals in civil detention ordinarily have a right to seek release on bond.

The ACLU further noted that one of the men at the center of the case has since returned to Jamaica, but emphasized that the Supreme Court should still consider the broader question of detainees’ procedural rights.

Following Monday’s decision to hear the case, the ACLU reiterated its view that constitutional protections extend to all persons regardless of immigration status, criticizing indefinite detention without bond hearings as a significant violation of due process. The government maintains that federal law’s mandatory detention provisions override any requirement for individualized bond determinations in cases involving aggravated felonies.

The upcoming Supreme Court ruling will be closely watched for its potential to reshape the balance between immigration enforcement and constitutional safeguards for detained noncitizens.