On the final day of the last Supreme Court term, the court listed two cases for reargument. Both had been argued prior to the nomination and confirmation of Justice Neil Gorsuch, and both were presumably tied, 4-4, as the term came to a close. Both, when decided ­during the upcoming term, could significantly impact noncitizens facing deportation, in Pennsylvania and nationwide. Jennings v. Rodriguez, 136 S. Ct. 2489 (2016) (granting certiorari), will address the constitutional limitations on mandatory, no-bond ­immigration detention.

Jennings was first argued on Nov. 30, 2016, and will be reargued on Oct. 3. The ­petitioners represent the federal government, while the respondents are a class of noncitizens who were detained in the Central District of California in civil ­immigration custody for more than six months and brought a habeas corpus action ­seeking bond hearings. The government ­petitioned for certioriari from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's decision in Rodriguez v. Robbins, 804 F.3d 1060, 1066 (9th Cir. 2015), but the Supreme Court's decision will have ­nationwide implications.

When Immigration and Customs Enforcement initiates removal (deportation) proceedings against a noncitizen, it may choose to detain that person. Most noncitizens have the opportunity for a bond hearing before an immigration judge, who can set a bond if the noncitizen shows that he is neither a danger to the community nor a flight risk, as in Matter of Guerra, 24 I. & N. Dec. 37, 38 (BIA 2006). In other cases, however, the Immigration and Nationality Act provides for mandatory detention, without a bond hearing, during the pendency of the removal proceedings, 8 U.S.C. Section 1225(b)(iii)(IV); Section 1226(c). Noncitizens, including lawful permanent residents, who have been convicted of a broad range of crimes at any time in the past are subject to mandatory detention without a bond hearing, as are asylum-seekers who present themselves to immigration officials at the border.