Trump’s ICE Policy to Face Supreme Court Justices He Regrets Nominating
President Donald Trump's push to expand immigration detention is headed to the Supreme Court, setting up a major test for three justices he now says he regrets appointing.
The Supreme Court announced Thursday that it will review the Trump administration's policy of denying bond hearings to certain immigrants arrested inside the United States while they challenge deportation proceedings, a case that could affect millions of noncitizens and significantly reshape federal immigration enforcement.
A decision is expected during the court's current term, which begins Monday, October 5, and runs through mid-2027.
"DHS is glad that the Supreme Court will hear arguments regarding mandatory detention and opinions from the Board of Immigration Appeals and multiple federal courts of appeals that reflect the soundness of the Department's legal position," a DHS spokesperson told Newsweek.
The announcement arrives as Trump said in an interview with TIME that he regretted appointing Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett because they had ruled against him "too often" in several major cases during his second term.
What the Supreme Court Will Decide
The dispute centers on whether immigrants accused of entering the country illegally must remain in government custody throughout their removal cases or whether they are entitled to individualized bond hearings before an immigration judge. Most federal appeals courts have concluded that prolonged detention without such hearings violates federal law, while the Fifth and Eighth Circuits have sided with the administration's interpretation that detention is mandatory.
"They say the nation’s courts have been inundated with thousands of petitions filed by immigrants challenging the government’s legal interpretation," Trump's lawyers wrote. “The result is an unworkable patchwork of inconsistent immigration enforcement, where aliens present without admission are subject to mandatory detention in some circuits but are entitled to bond hearings and often released in others."
At issue is how broadly a 1996 immigration statute should be applied. The administration contends it covers immigrants who entered the country illegally regardless of how long they have lived in the United States, while opponents argue Congress intended the mandatory-detention provision to apply mainly to individuals encountered at or near the border.
The DHS spokesperson said the administration's implementation of the law "put the nail in the coffin" for former Democratic President Joe Biden's "catch and release policies" and argued that covered immigrants "are required to be detained."
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which is helping represent the plaintiffs in the case, welcomed the Supreme Court's decision to hear the case and noted lower courts have rejected the administration's interpretation of the statute.
"The courts have repeatedly and resoundingly rejected the Trump administration's radical misinterpretation of the law," Michael K.T. Tan, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, said in a statement shared with Newsweek via email. "Try as it might, the government cannot twist the law to detain immigrants for months or even years on end without a bond hearing."
Jennifer Lee Koh, a professor at Pepperdine Caruso School of Law who specializes in immigration law, told Newsweek the dispute extends beyond a technical disagreement over how federal immigration statutes should be interpreted.
"Outwardly, the point of disagreement amongst the courts involves a seemingly technical interpretation of the law: for instance, what the words 'seeking admission' mean," Koh said in an email response. "But the case is really about something far more fundamental, which is the scope of the government's power to detain people based on the allegation that they once entered the country without authorization."
Trump's Clash With His Supreme Court Picks
The case arrives before a court Trump has publicly criticized in recent months despite having appointed three of its nine members during his first term.
Referring to Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, Trump told TIME: "Yeah. Yeah. What can I do? I put them in. They voted against me too often. I gave them the position of a lifetime, and they vote against me often. They vote for me, too."
Trump's frustration with the three justices follows several significant Supreme Court defeats during his second term, including rulings on tariffs, birthright citizenship and the independence of the Federal Reserve. While the president insisted to TIME that he was seeking "good decisions" rather than loyalty, he contrasted his appointees with the court's three Democratic-appointed justices, whom he accused of voting together more consistently.
"The Democrats stick like glue, those three, they virtually never vary," he told the magazine. "You can come up with the worst thing in the world and they'll vote as a group. And while I don't like it, there's something I admire about it: there's loyalty."
He added, in part: "They have loyalty to Barack Hussein Obama. They have loyalty to [Joe] Biden ... And me, I gave them the chance of a lifetime, and it's unfortunate what they did."
The newly accepted immigration case is the latest major dispute involving Trump's immigration agenda to reach a court he has increasingly criticized over rulings that have frustrated key parts of his second-term policy agenda.
What a Supreme Court Decision Could Mean for ICE and Immigrant Detention
The case comes as Trump pursues an aggressive immigration crackdown that has become a defining feature of his second term. ICE reported in July that it had removed more than 356,000 people during fiscal year 2026, putting the agency on pace for one of its highest annual deportation totals in decades. At the same time, Reuters reported that ICE made nearly 51,000 arrests in August, a monthly record, including many people who did not have criminal convictions or pending criminal charges.
If the Supreme Court ultimately backs the Trump administration, it would clear the way for ICE to continue holding many immigrants in custody while their deportation cases move through the courts, without first providing bond hearings. Such a ruling could resolve the conflicting decisions that have emerged across the country and give the administration a significant victory as it pursues a broader immigration crackdown.
A ruling against the administration, however, could require ICE to once again provide broader access to bond hearings for immigrants arrested inside the United States, including some who have lived in the country for years. It would also reinforce the position adopted by most federal appeals courts and likely force the administration to revisit guidance that expanded the use of mandatory detention.
Newsweek’s reporters and editors used Martyn, our AI assistant, to produce this story. Learn more about Martyn here.
NO SURRENDER — Ilhan Omar Fires Back at Donald Trump After Federal Agents Search Her Home
Ilhan Omar is refusing to back down after federal agents searched her Washington, D.C., home in a criminal investigation—an extraordinary development that has reignited her long-running confrontation with Donald Trump just weeks before the midterm elections.
The Minnesota Democrat responded with a defiant message: “I will not be silenced.” She accused the Trump administration of using federal law enforcement to target political opponents and described the search as another escalation in what she called a decade-long campaign of intimidation.
The statement immediately raised the political stakes. Omar is not simply disputing the circumstances surrounding the search; she is challenging the administration’s conduct and demanding that the public examine why federal agents took such a consequential step so close to an election.
But the central questions remain unresolved: What exactly are investigators looking for, what evidence supports the inquiry, and will the search trigger a broader confrontation between congressional Democrats and the Trump administration?
‘I Will Not Be Silenced’: Omar’s Defiant Response
On October 12, after news of the search emerged, Omar posted a response on social media that began with a brief reassurance: “I’m ok.”
She then delivered a much sharper political message, accusing the administration of targeting political enemies and weaponizing federal law enforcement.
“For ten years, Trump has targeted me with baseless lies and smear campaigns,” Omar wrote, describing the search as the latest escalation in what she characterized as political intimidation. She ended with a declaration that quickly became the defining line of her response: “I will not be silenced.”
Her congressional office issued a separate statement calling the search an “outrageous abuse of power” and an “unprecedented escalation” in the use of federal law enforcement against political opponents. The statement said Omar had done nothing wrong and argued that no president should be able to use the federal government to intimidate political adversaries.
Those are Omar’s allegations and her office’s position. The search itself was carried out under a judicially authorized warrant, according to the Justice Department. Whether investigators uncover evidence of wrongdoing—and whether the search was justified by the facts of the case—remains to be established.
What Happened at Omar’s Washington Home?
Federal agents with Homeland Security Investigations, the investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security, searched Omar’s Washington residence early Monday, October 12.
The Justice Department confirmed that agents executed a search warrant authorized by a court as part of an ongoing federal criminal investigation. Officials did not publicly disclose a complete account of the evidence being sought or all the details of the inquiry.
Reporting by CBS News and The Washington Post indicated that investigators were examining immigration paperwork dating back to Omar’s childhood. The documents reportedly involved paperwork completed by her late father when the family came to the United States as refugees from Somalia.
The details remain limited, and the reported focus of the investigation should not be confused with a finding of guilt. A search warrant authorizes investigators to look for specified evidence; it does not establish that the person whose home is searched committed a crime.
Omar has repeatedly rejected allegations against her and portrayed the renewed scrutiny as politically motivated. Her office’s statement following the search reiterated that she had done nothing wrong.
As of the latest reports, authorities had not publicly laid out a complete evidentiary case against the congresswoman. That leaves a critical distinction at the center of the story: the investigation is real, but its ultimate findings are not yet known.
Why the Timing Has Become a Political Flashpoint
The search took place less than a month before the November midterm elections, when control of Congress is at stake. That timing has intensified questions from Democrats about whether the action could influence the political environment surrounding Omar’s reelection campaign.
House Judiciary Committee Democrats raised concerns about the search, while senior Democratic leaders condemned the action and questioned the use of federal power against a sitting member of Congress so close to an election.
The criticism centers on more than Omar’s personal dispute with Trump. It touches on a broader principle: federal law enforcement must be able to investigate potential crimes, but its decisions should be grounded in evidence and applied without improper political influence.
The Justice Department has confirmed the existence of a court-authorized search but has not publicly provided a full explanation of the investigative rationale. Without that information, it is not possible to establish from the public record alone whether the timing was politically motivated or driven by investigative necessities.
That uncertainty is likely to keep the controversy alive. Democrats are demanding answers about the decision and its timing, while the investigation itself remains ongoing.
A Long-Running Clash Between Omar and Trump
Omar has been one of Trump’s most prominent congressional critics. Their political conflict has repeatedly drawn national attention, with disputes involving immigration, national identity, federal enforcement and the congresswoman’s background.
Trump has frequently criticized Omar in public, while Omar has accused him of spreading false claims and using inflammatory rhetoric against her and the Somali American community.
In the days before the search, Omar had also criticized Trump’s rhetoric about Somali Americans. The latest federal action therefore arrived against the backdrop of an already bitter political relationship—not in isolation.
Still, a history of public hostility does not by itself prove that a federal investigation was politically directed. Establishing improper interference would require evidence about how the investigation was initiated, authorized and conducted.
That distinction matters because the controversy involves two separate questions: whether investigators have a legitimate basis to pursue the case, and whether the administration has handled the matter in a politically appropriate way.
Both questions deserve scrutiny, but neither should be treated as settled before the relevant evidence is available.
Democrats Demand Answers as the Investigation Continues
Omar’s response has been echoed by Democratic colleagues who say the search raises serious concerns about the use of federal power. Some have called for accountability and greater transparency about the investigation.
Their criticism is also shaped by the election calendar. A federal search involving a sitting member of Congress in the final weeks before voters head to the polls is certain to draw heightened political attention, even when authorities have a judicial warrant.
The administration’s position and the investigators’ evidence will be crucial to determining how the controversy develops. If officials disclose a clear evidentiary basis for the search, that information will help the public evaluate the government’s actions. If significant questions remain unanswered, pressure for congressional oversight may intensify.
For now, the public has only a partial picture of the investigation. Officials have confirmed a court-authorized search, but have not disclosed all the evidence or publicly established that Omar committed a crime.
What Happens Next for Ilhan Omar?
The immediate questions are whether investigators will release additional information, whether Omar or her representatives will provide further details, and whether congressional leaders will seek formal oversight of the search.
Omar has made her own position unmistakable: she intends to continue speaking out and views the search as an attempt to intimidate a political opponent. The Trump administration’s critics have embraced that interpretation, while the legal justification for the search must ultimately be evaluated through the evidence and applicable law.
The coming days could bring more details about the investigation, new statements from lawmakers and further debate over the role of federal law enforcement during an election season.
For now, the most defensible conclusion is also the most consequential: a federal search has triggered a major political confrontation, Omar has publicly challenged the administration’s motives, and key questions about the investigation remain unanswered.
Her “I will not be silenced” declaration has become a rallying cry for her response. Whether the dispute grows into a wider congressional battle will depend on what investigators reveal next—and whether the government can explain its actions in a way that withstands public and legal scrutiny.
