Genalo v. Black
No. 25-886 · October Term 2026 · Due Process
Expected vote 6–3 for Genalo. Chance of a unanimous ruling 42%.
Before oral argument the model knows only the case's structure: the issue area, which way the lower court ruled, and each justice's record on both. That is not enough to separate cases, so every unargued case carries the petitioner's base rate. The transcript features arrive within days of argument and the number becomes a call.
The case
This case involves a challenge to the prolonged detention of non-citizens facing removal proceedings without a bond hearing. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that such detention, when "unreasonably prolonged," violates due process and requires a bond hearing where the government bears the burden of proof. The Supreme Court will decide if and when such detentions become unconstitutional, and what procedural safeguards, if any, are required.
- Whether the Due Process Clause requires a bond hearing for non-citizens detained under 8 U.S.C. 1226(c) when their detention becomes "unreasonably prolonged."
- If a bond hearing is required, whether due process mandates placing the burden on the government to justify continued detention by clear and convincing evidence.
- Whether the specific case of G.M. is now moot, given his release under a separate court order.
AI brief written by gemini-2.5-flash from the questions presented and the Oyez facts on 2026-10-02. Commentary only; it is not an input to the model.
Question presented, as filed
BY THE PETITION, THE PARTIES ARE DIRECTED TO BRIEF AND ARGUE THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHETHER G.M.'S CASE IS NOW MOOT. ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 11 , 2026 : CASE DISMISSED - RULE 46 CERT. GRANTED 6/15/2026 QUESTION PRESENTED: Under 8 U.S.C. 1226(c), certain criminal aliens are required to be detained pending a decision on whether they are to be removed from the United States. In Jennings v. Rodriguez , 583 U.S. 281 (2018), this Court held that Section 1226(c) prohibits the release of such aliens on bond. The Court reserved judgment on various constitutional issues on which it had ordered supplemental briefing, including whether the Due Process Clause requires bond hearings for certain Section 1226(c) detainees and, if so, what kind of bond hearing. Respondents here are two criminal aliens detained under Section 1226(c) for 7 and 21 months, respectively, pending their removal proceedings. The court of appeals held that each respondent's detention had become "unreasonably prolonged," such that due process entitled him to a bond hearing with the burden placed on the government to justify his continued detention by clear and convincing evidence. Pet. App. 5a. The questions presented are: 1. 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. 2. 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.
Facts of the case (Oyez)
Keisy G.M. is a citizen of the Dominican Republic who became a lawful permanent resident of the United States in 2011 and settled in the Bronx, New York. In 2015, following a 2012 altercation outside a New York City restaurant, he pleaded guilty to second-degree assault and was sentenced to two years in prison and three years of supervised release. After completing his sentence, G.M. lived with his mother, helped manage her medical needs, maintained steady employment, and helped support his family, including three young children. On October 5, 2020, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrested G.M. at his home and began removal proceedings based on his 2015 conviction. ICE determined that the conviction triggered a federal statute directing the government to detain certain noncitizens with prior criminal convictions while removal proceedings are pending, a statute that provides no mechanism for a bond hearing and sets no time limit on detention. G.M. was placed in the Hudson County Correctional Facility in New Jersey. COVID-19 restrictions at the facility impeded his ability to prepare his legal case. Over approximately twenty-one months, G.M. appeared at multiple hearings but never received a bond hearing at which an official would assess whether continued detention was actually necessary. He was released in July 2022 under a separate nationwide court order tied to pandemic-related concerns. G.M. filed a petition for release in federal district court in May 2021, arguing that his prolonged detention without a bond hearing violated his constitutional right to due process. The district court denied the petition. G.M. appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which reversed the district court's judgment. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and directed the parties to also brief whether G.M.’s case is now moot.
The nine
Each justice's predicted vote and the record behind it: how often they have voted for the petitioner overall, in Due Process cases, and when the lower court ruled liberal; and, once argued, how many questions they put to each side (the side a justice questions more tends to lose their vote). The note under each row is the AI brief's reading, commentary rather than model input.
| Justice | Predicted | Overall | This issue | Lower court liberal | At argument |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
John G. Roberts Republican appointee · since OT2005 Chief Justice Roberts often prioritizes judicial restraint and deference to legislative intent, which could lead him to favor the government's position on immigration detention statutes. However, he has also shown concern for due process in certain contexts, which might lead him to consider the limits of prolonged detention. | 66% Genalo | 68% for the petitioner · 1,512 votes | 76% Due Process · 46 votes | 77% lower court liberal · 730 votes | not yet argued |
Clarence Thomas Republican appointee · since OT1991 Justice Thomas typically adheres to a textualist and originalist interpretation of statutes and the Constitution, often deferring to the executive branch in immigration matters. His jurisprudence suggests a strong inclination to uphold statutory detention schemes as written. | 68% Genalo | 59% for the petitioner · 2,801 votes | 64% Due Process · 97 votes | 77% lower court liberal · 1,344 votes | not yet argued |
Samuel A. Alito Republican appointee · since OT2005 Justice Alito generally takes a conservative stance, often siding with the government in cases involving immigration and national security. He is likely to emphasize the government's interest in detaining criminal aliens and the statutory framework established by Congress. | 68% Genalo | 62% for the petitioner · 1,469 votes | 67% Due Process · 45 votes | 79% lower court liberal · 699 votes | not yet argued |
Sonia Sotomayor Democratic appointee · since OT2009 Justice Sotomayor often emphasizes the protection of individual liberties and due process rights, particularly for vulnerable populations. Her past opinions suggest a strong concern for the fairness of legal proceedings and the potential for arbitrary detention. | 51% Genalo | 61% for the petitioner · 1,192 votes | 65% Due Process · 40 votes | 48% lower court liberal · 560 votes | not yet argued |
Elena Kagan Democratic appointee · since OT2010 Justice Kagan often seeks to balance governmental interests with individual rights, and her approach can be pragmatic. She may consider the practical implications of indefinite detention without review, while also acknowledging the government's need for effective immigration enforcement. | 57% Genalo | 63% for the petitioner · 1,072 votes | 67% Due Process · 39 votes | 51% lower court liberal · 495 votes | not yet argued |
Neil M. Gorsuch Republican appointee · since OT2016 Justice Gorsuch is known for his textualist approach and, at times, his skepticism of broad governmental power, particularly when it impacts individual liberty. While often conservative, his jurisprudence has sometimes aligned with more liberal justices on issues of due process and administrative overreach. | 66% Genalo | 65% for the petitioner · 592 votes | 57% Due Process · 21 votes | 75% lower court liberal · 278 votes | not yet argued |
Brett M. Kavanaugh Republican appointee · since OT2018 Justice Kavanaugh generally takes a more conservative approach, often deferring to the executive branch and statutory text in immigration cases. He is likely to be persuaded by arguments emphasizing the government's authority under Section 1226(c). | 68% Genalo | 69% for the petitioner · 498 votes | 78% Due Process · 18 votes | 77% lower court liberal · 235 votes | not yet argued |
Amy Coney Barrett Republican appointee · since OT2020 Justice Barrett's jurisprudence often emphasizes originalism and textualism, and she tends to be deferential to the political branches. She would likely scrutinize the statutory language of 1226(c) and the historical understanding of due process in this context. | 66% Genalo | 66% for the petitioner · 360 votes | 77% Due Process · 13 votes | 76% lower court liberal · 168 votes | not yet argued |
Ketanji Brown Jackson Democratic appointee · since OT2022 Justice Jackson often emphasizes the practical impact of legal decisions on individuals and has shown a strong commitment to due process and fairness. Her background as a public defender could lead her to scrutinize the conditions and duration of detention without judicial review. | 51% Genalo | 59% for the petitioner · 244 votes | 100% Due Process · 9 votes | 38% lower court liberal · 108 votes | not yet argued |
Rates are each justice's own participation record in the Supreme Court Database, the same history the model trains on; a rate on fewer than five votes is not shown. The predicted vote is VotePredictor SCOTUS' per-justice probability from the served model, which also reads the bench-wide transcript signal and how long each side held the podium.
Every call this term, justice by justice · how the model is built and its record. Data as of 2026-10-02.