Independent newsroom

Monday, October 5, 2026

The File

Every claim traces to a primary source. Uncertainty is labeled. Corrections are public.

Supreme Court · Monday, October 5, 2026

Supreme Court agrees to decide whether people never legally admitted must be held

The File desk · Oct 5, 2026, 10:37 AM UTC

Status

Confirmed (Supreme Court order list, Oct. 1, 2026, and the questions presented). Argument dates are not set.

On Thursday, Oct. 1, the Supreme Court took three new cases. The biggest is an appeal by the federal government. It asks whether federal law requires immigration officers to detain people who live in the country but were never legally admitted, for as long as their deportation cases last. The other two cases involve a Kentucky church group’s building plans and a North Dakota divorce over a veteran’s retirement pay. The Court has not set argument dates.

This order list posted on Thursday, Oct. 1, after an earlier edition had locked. We did not carry it then.

The immigration case is Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, No. 26-104. The petitioner is Philip L. Rhoney, acting director of the Buffalo field office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The case comes from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, No. 25-3141, which ruled April 28, 2026. The question is whether

“mandates the detention” of people “present in the United States without having been admitted.” This desk did not fetch the Second Circuit’s opinion, so this story stops at the question.

The church case is Missionaries of St. John the Baptist, Inc. v. Frederic, No. 25-1131, from the Kentucky Supreme Court. The Court took only question 1: whether a land-use rule that stops a religious group from building a religious structure on its own land is a “substantial burden” under the

.

The divorce case is Marschner v. Marschner, No. 25-1349, from the North Dakota Supreme Court. A divorcing couple agreed the veteran would make up any loss to his ex-wife if he later swapped retirement pay for disability pay. North Dakota’s high court refused to enforce that promise, relying on the Supreme Court’s 2017 decision in Howell v. Howell. The question presented asks: “Does the

require state courts to refuse enforcement of indemnification provisions in divorce settlement agreements?”

The same Oct. 1 order list granted the solicitor general’s request to share argument time in Beaird v. United States, which is set for Oct. 13. A separate order the same day denied an emergency request in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Albence, No. 26A349, from the Third Circuit. This desk did not fetch that case’s underlying filings. The request was denied. That is all this story says about it.

What is still unknown or disputed

Primary sources

Every claim in this story is drawn from the documents below. If a fetch failed, that is recorded on the card.

  1. Source 1

    Order list, Thursday, October 1, 2026 (609 U.S.)

    Supreme Court of the United States · October 1, 2026

    The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted.

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/100126zr_6j37.pdf

  2. Source 2

    Question presented, No. 26-104

    Supreme Court of the United States · October 1, 2026

    Whether mandates the detention pending removal proceedings of aliens who, like respondent, are present in the United States without having been admitted.

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/26-00104qp.pdf

  3. Source 3

    Docket No. 26-104

    Supreme Court of the United States · October 1, 2026

    Philip L. Rhoney, Acting Director of the Buffalo Field Office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Petitioner.

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-104.html

  4. Source 4

    Question presented, No. 25-1131

    Supreme Court of the United States · October 1, 2026

    GRANTED LIMITED TO QUESTION 1 PRESENTED BY THE PETITION.

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/25-01131qp.pdf

  5. Source 5

    Question presented, No. 25-1349

    Supreme Court of the United States · October 1, 2026

    Does the USFSPA require state courts to refuse enforcement of indemnification provisions in divorce settlement agreements?

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/25-01349qp.pdf

  6. Source 6

    Miscellaneous order, No. 26A349

    Supreme Court of the United States · October 1, 2026

    The application for writ of injunction presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied.

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/100126zr1_j4el.pdf