Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha
No. 26-104 · October Term 2026 · Civil Rights
Expected vote 6–3 for Rhoney. 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, Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, involves a dispute between the Acting Director of the Buffalo Field Office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Barbosa da Cunha, prompting the government to appeal. The Supreme Court must now determine whether federal law mandates the detention of undocumented aliens pending removal proceedings.
- The central legal question is the interpretation of 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(2)(A), specifically whether it imposes mandatory detention for aliens present without admission.
- The Court will need to consider the statutory language and legislative intent behind immigration detention provisions.
- This case will impact the scope of executive authority in immigration enforcement and the due process rights of individuals facing removal.
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
Whether 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(2)(A) mandates the detention pending removal proceedings of aliens who, like respondent, are present in the United States without having been admitted.
The nine
Each justice's predicted vote and the record behind it: how often they have voted for the petitioner overall, in Civil Rights 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 statutory text and may lean towards a plain language reading of the detention mandate, while also being mindful of the practical implications for immigration enforcement. | 66% Rhoney | 68% for the petitioner · 1,512 votes | 70% Civil Rights · 248 votes | 77% lower court liberal · 730 votes | not yet argued |
Clarence Thomas Republican appointee · since OT1991 Justice Thomas typically adheres to originalism and textualism, which could lead him to interpret the statute strictly based on its wording at the time of enactment, potentially favoring mandatory detention. | 68% Rhoney | 59% for the petitioner · 2,801 votes | 57% Civil Rights · 464 votes | 77% lower court liberal · 1,344 votes | not yet argued |
Samuel A. Alito Republican appointee · since OT2005 Justice Alito generally favors strong executive authority in immigration matters and a textualist approach to statutes, which might incline him to support a mandatory detention interpretation. | 68% Rhoney | 62% for the petitioner · 1,469 votes | 65% Civil Rights · 244 votes | 79% lower court liberal · 699 votes | not yet argued |
Sonia Sotomayor Democratic appointee · since OT2009 Justice Sotomayor often emphasizes due process and the rights of individuals, and she may scrutinize the statute for any ambiguity that could allow for discretion in detention decisions. | 51% Rhoney | 61% for the petitioner · 1,192 votes | 61% Civil Rights · 192 votes | 48% lower court liberal · 560 votes | not yet argued |
Elena Kagan Democratic appointee · since OT2010 Justice Kagan often considers legislative intent and statutory purpose, and she may look to the broader context of immigration law to interpret the detention provision. | 51% Rhoney | 63% for the petitioner · 1,072 votes | 60% Civil Rights · 171 votes | 51% lower court liberal · 495 votes | not yet argued |
Neil M. Gorsuch Republican appointee · since OT2016 Justice Gorsuch often emphasizes textualism and separation of powers, and he may carefully examine whether the statute clearly mandates detention or if it grants discretion to the executive branch. | 66% Rhoney | 65% for the petitioner · 592 votes | 70% Civil Rights · 99 votes | 75% lower court liberal · 278 votes | not yet argued |
Brett M. Kavanaugh Republican appointee · since OT2018 Justice Kavanaugh often takes a pragmatic approach, balancing statutory text with practical considerations, and he may consider the administrative burdens and policy implications of mandatory detention. | 66% Rhoney | 69% for the petitioner · 498 votes | 64% Civil Rights · 83 votes | 77% lower court liberal · 235 votes | not yet argued |
Amy Coney Barrett Republican appointee · since OT2020 Justice Barrett typically employs a textualist methodology, focusing on the ordinary public meaning of the statutory language, which could lead her to a straightforward interpretation of the detention mandate. | 66% Rhoney | 66% for the petitioner · 360 votes | 72% Civil Rights · 61 votes | 76% lower court liberal · 168 votes | not yet argued |
Ketanji Brown Jackson Democratic appointee · since OT2022 Justice Jackson often considers the practical impact of legal interpretations on individuals and may examine the historical context and purpose of immigration statutes, potentially looking for discretion in detention. | 57% Rhoney | 59% for the petitioner · 244 votes | 47% Civil Rights · 38 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.