Three Supreme Court immigration cases to watch this term

The Supreme Court's term that began in October 2026 includes three immigration cases that reach people with asylum cases, people facing removal, and people in detention. Here is what the Court agreed to decide in each, in the words it used, and where each case stands as of November 4, 2026.

None of these cases has been decided. This post explains the questions, not the answers.

Wassily v. Blanche: green cards after asylum is terminated

Argument: Monday, November 30, 2026.

A person granted asylum can later apply to become a lawful permanent resident. The statute, 8 U.S.C. 1159(b), says the government "may adjust to the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence the status of any alien granted asylum," if other requirements are met. We cover that path in From asylee to green card.

The question is what happens if asylum is granted and then terminated. In the Court's words, the case asks:

"Whether noncitizens who were 'granted asylum,' but whose asylum was later terminated, are eligible for adjustment to LPR status under Section 1159(b) (as the Fifth Circuit held), or are categorically ineligible (as the Second and Fourth Circuits held)?"

The case comes from the Second Circuit, which covers New York. Today, the answer depends on where you live. A decision will set one rule for the whole country.

DHS v. D.V.D.: removal to a third country

Argument: Wednesday, December 9, 2026.

This case is about the government's guidance on removing people to a country other than their own, often one they have never lived in. A federal district court in Massachusetts ruled against the guidance in a class action. On September 29, 2026, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and stayed the district court's February 25, 2026 judgment while it decides.

The Court directed the parties to brief and argue:

1. "Whether the district court had jurisdiction over Respondents' claims."
2. "Whether the district court had authority to enter classwide declaratory relief and APA vacatur under 8 U.S.C. §1252(f)(1)."
3. "Whether the Government's Guidance on third-country removals is unlawful under 8 U.S.C. §1231(b), the Due Process Clause, or FARRA/CAT and its implementing regulations."

FARRA is the law that carries out the Convention Against Torture in the United States. Part of the dispute is what notice and chance to raise a fear of torture in the new country people must get before they are sent there. For background on CAT protection, see how asylum, withholding and CAT compare.

Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha: who must be detained

Argument: not yet scheduled. On October 28, 2026, the Court extended the government's deadline for its main brief to November 30, 2026.

The question presented is:

"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."

This matters for bond. If the Court holds that this section requires detention for everyone who entered without being admitted, many people now able to ask an immigration judge for bond could lose that chance. If it holds the other way, bond hearings for that group would continue. The case comes from the Second Circuit.

What this means for you now

• Nothing is decided yet. Do not change plans based on how you expect a case to come out.
• Your deadlines do not stop. Appeals, filings and hearings in your own case go on while the Supreme Court decides.
• Ask a lawyer how each case could reach your situation, especially if your asylum was terminated, you have been told you may be sent to a third country, or you are detained.

We will update this post and our rule tracker as the cases move.