What cases will the Supreme Court agree to hear before Jan 2027? — Buenrostro-Mendez v. Blanche

- [2026-07-02] Petitioners in Victor Buenrostro-Mendez, et al. v. Todd Blanche, Attorney General, et al. filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court (No. 26-43), after the Fifth Circuit (No. 25-20496/25-40701) ruled against them on Feb. 6, 2026 and denied rehearing on April 9, 2026. https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-43.html - [2026-08-10] The Solicitor General (Federal Respondents) filed a brief in opposition; petitioners filed their reply on Aug. 24, 2026, and the case was distributed for the Sept. 28, 2026 conference. https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-43.html - [2026-09-25] ACLU counsel for petitioners filed a follow-up letter to the Clerk arguing that if the Court grants certiorari in a related case, it "should grant only on the statutory issue presented in Buenrostro-Mendez and Rhoney." "For the reasons stated by Respondents in Putra and Rhoney and Petitioners in Buenrostro-Mendez, if this Court grants certiorari in D.C., it should grant only on the statutory issue presented in Buenrostro-Mendez and Rhoney." - [2026-10-01] At its "long conference," the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the closely related case Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha (No. 26-104), presenting the identical statutory question (whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) mandates detention of unadmitted aliens present in the U.S.), rather than granting cert in Buenrostro-Mendez itself. "CERT. GRANTED 10/1/2026 QUESTION PRESENTED: 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." - [2026-10-01] Court orders for that date list grants only in Marschner v. Marschner, Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, and Missionaries of St. John v. Frederic; Buenrostro-Mendez (26-43) is not among the cases acted upon. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/100126zr.html - [2026-10-06] An ACLU national update confirms the cert grant was in Rhoney, not Buenrostro-Mendez: "at its annual summer's-end long conference, the Supreme Court granted review on a different immigration detention issue in an ACLU case, Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha," which is "one of 11 cases (one in each numbered federal circuit court) in which the ACLU has challenged the Trump administration's misinterpretation of a mandatory detention statute." - [2026-10-07] Legal commentary notes the grant in Rhoney addresses the same § 1225(b)(2)(A)/§ 1226(a) split that Buenrostro-Mendez (5th Cir.) created, with the Second Circuit's pro-noncitizen ruling in Barbosa da Cunha now being the vehicle for Supreme Court review. https://www.wilneroreilly.com/supreme-court-immigration-detention-bond-barbosa-da-cunha/ - [2026-10-08/09] As of the latest SCOTUS docket pull, No. 26-43 (Buenrostro-Mendez v. Blanche) shows no entry disposing of the petition — the last docket activity remains the Sept. 25, 2026 letter; no grant, denial, hold, or GVR order has yet issued in this specific case. https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-43.html - [2026-09-11] Government filings (e.g., in the related Rhoney docket) had separately urged the Court to either grant cert in Buenrostro-Mendez or hold it pending disposition of the government's petitions, underscoring that multiple vehicles existed for the same question — and the Court chose Rhoney as the lead vehicle. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/26/26-104/425719/20260925165734999_2026.09.25%20Letter%20re%20DC.pdf - [2026-10-05] A CLINIC legal-resources summary confirms the pending-petition landscape: the government sought review of the Second Circuit's Rhoney decision and the Sixth Circuit's Raycraft decision, while "The petitioners in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Blanche, No." 26-43 separately sought review of the Fifth Circuit's pro-government ruling. https://www.cliniclegal.org/resources/litigation/circuit-split-ripe-review-mandatory-detention-under-ina-ss-235b2a BOTTOM LINE: As of Oct. 9, 2026, the Supreme Court has granted certiorari on the underlying statutory question via a different, companion case (Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, No. 26-104, granted Oct. 1, 2026), not via Buenrostro-Mendez v. Blanche (No. 26-43), which remains undocketed for any grant/denial/hold action; the typical practice in such circuit-split clusters is to hold parallel petitions pending the lead case's merits decision, making an outright cert grant specifically in Buenrostro-Mendez before Jan. 1, 2027 unlikely absent a change in Court practice. NOT FOUND: No SCOTUS order explicitly "holding" No. 26-43 pending Rhoney has yet been located; no scheduled conference date for 26-43 after Sept. 28, 2026 appears in the docket as fetched.

- [2026-07-02] The petitioners filed their certiorari petition in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Blanche (No. 26-43), seeking review of a Fifth Circuit decision favoring the government's mandatory-detention interpretation; Buenrostro-Mendez v. Blanche, No. 26-43 (cert. pet. filed July 2, 2026) . https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-43.html - [2026-08-24] Petitioners' reply brief was filed, and the case was distributed for the September 28, 2026 conference, then "rescheduled" and redistributed for the same conference — a routine procedural step often seen before cert decisions on cases tied to companion petitions. https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-43.html - [2026-09-25] As of the most recent docket entry, no cert grant or denial has been issued; the case remains pending after multiple conference distributions, with counsel submitting supplemental letters addressing how the Court should treat it relative to companion petitions (Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, No. 26-104, and Raycraft v. Lopez-Campos, No. 25-1415). https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-43.html - [2026-07-23] Bloomberg Law reporting captured the outside-view consensus among attorneys: "The justices are overwhelmingly likely to take the case in some form," given the acknowledged circuit split and the stakes involved. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/trump-immigrant-detention-policy-on-glide-path-to-supreme-court - [2026-07-23] This is a genuine, deep circuit split on a nationally significant statutory question (mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A)), with both the government and noncitizen petitioners separately seeking certiorari — a classic fact pattern (a "ripe," acknowledged split plus cross-petitions) that historically correlates with a high cert-grant probability, well above the Court's overall ~2-4% grant rate for the general cert pool. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/trump-immigrant-detention-policy-on-glide-path-to-supreme-court - [2026-09-11] A coalition of states and multiple parties across the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits have filed amicus and cross-referencing briefs, underscoring that this is one of several competing vehicles (Buenrostro-Mendez, Raycraft/Lopez-Campos, Rhoney/Barbosa da Cunha) the Court could choose among to resolve the same question, which historically can delay — but rarely prevents — an eventual grant. https://www.cliniclegal.org/resources/litigation/circuit-split-ripe-review-mandatory-detention-under-ina-ss-235b2a - [2026-10-05] A party in a related/competing petition argued the Court should "grant review only on the statutory question on which the circuits are divided, either this case or the pending petition out of the Fifth Circuit," explicitly flagging Buenrostro-Mendez as one of the leading vehicles for resolving the circuit split. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/26/26-104/428500/20261005150833296_395847_tst_BRIEF.pdf - [historical pattern] In comparable high-profile immigration-detention disputes with acknowledged circuit splits and cross-petitions (e.g., Jennings v. Rodriguez, Campos-Chaves v. Garland), the Supreme Court has reliably granted certiorari, though the process from petition-filing to grant announcement commonly takes two to six months and often involves multiple "relistings"/reschedulings before a decision is announced. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campos-Chaves_v._Garland - [base rate] Historically, well under 5% of all certiorari petitions filed with the Supreme Court are granted in a typical term, but petitions flagged by multiple courts of appeals as presenting an acknowledged, outcome-determinative circuit split with government participation (as here, where the Solicitor General itself petitioned in a companion case) are granted at a far higher rate, frequently in the 30-50%+ range for "circuit-split cert pool" cases based on historical practice, though this case-specific estimate is not itself sourced to a specific study. BOTTOM LINE: The reference class here — an acknowledged, deep circuit split on a nationally significant immigration-detention statute, with cross-petitions from both the government and the ACLU-represented petitioners, multiple amicus filings, and repeated conference distributions/reschedulings since September 2026 — strongly resembles the pattern of cases the Court typically grants, and attorneys quoted in contemporaneous coverage expect a grant "in some form"; the main uncertainty is not whether but through which specific vehicle (this case, Raycraft, or Rhoney) and whether a grant, if it comes, lands before January 1, 2027, given the case has already been relisted/rescheduled once. NOT FOUND: No order list entry showing a grant or denial for No. 26-43 as of the latest docket update (Sept. 25, 2026); no official statement from the Supreme Court or Solicitor General committing to a specific vehicle among the three competing petitions; no explicit statistical study cited in search results quantifying grant rates for "acknowledged circuit split with cross-petitions" as a formal reference class.

YES means: the Supreme Court grants a writ of certiorari specifically in No. 26-43, Buenrostro-Mendez v. Blanche, on its own docket, at any point before January 1, 2027. - [2026-10-09] The official docket for No. 26-43 shows the petition remains fully alive and undisposed: the last entry is still the Sept. 25, 2026 ACLU letter, with no denial, no "held," and no GVR order entered — meaning the Court has taken no final action foreclosing a future grant in this specific case. https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-43.html - [2026-10-05] In its own merits-stage brief in the companion case, the government itself proposed, in the alternative, that the Court should "grant the petition in Buenrostro-Mendez and hold this petition pending a decision on the statutory question there and dispose of it as appropriate," showing the Solicitor General regards Buenrostro-Mendez — not only Rhoney — as an acceptable, independently grantable vehicle. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/26/26-104/428500/20261005150833296_395847_tst_BRIEF.pdf - [2026-10-05] The same brief states that "either this case or Buenrostro-Mendez presents the best vehicle for resolving... the statutory question... because both squarely present the issue" , underscoring that Buenrostro-Mendez is viewed by both sides as co-equal, not subordinate, to Rhoney on the merits. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/26/26-104/428500/20261005150833296_395847_tst_BRIEF.pdf - [2026-09-25] Petitioners' own letter to the Clerk argued that if cert is granted in the related "D.C." petition it "should grant only on the statutory issue presented in Buenrostro-Mendez and Rhoney," explicitly pairing Buenrostro-Mendez with Rhoney as the two correct vehicles — consistent with a path where the Court grants both for consolidated argument rather than using Rhoney alone. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/26/26-104/425719/20260925165734999_2026.09.25%20Letter%20re%20DC.pdf - [mechanism] Because Buenrostro-Mendez is the only pending vehicle in which the Fifth Circuit (the circuit siding with the government) produced the underlying opinion, a grant specifically in 26-43 — rather than relying solely on the Second Circuit's pro-noncitizen Rhoney ruling — would let the Court resolve both directions of the acknowledged split in one term, a structural reason the Justices could still add it alongside Rhoney for the same argument sitting. - [2026-10-01] Court orders that date list grants only in Marschner, Rhoney, and Missionaries of St. John, with Buenrostro-Mendez absent — but the docket's lack of any "held" notation (as opposed to an explicit hold order, which the Court does sometimes enter) leaves open that the case is simply awaiting a later conference rather than being administratively parked. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/100126zr.html - [base-rate mechanism] Historically, when the Court is faced with cross-petitions presenting the identical statutory question from circuits that disagree, it has, in some terms, granted more than one case for consolidated argument rather than picking a single "lead" vehicle, which is the exact scenario the Buenrostro-Mendez/Rhoney pairing presents. BOTTOM LINE: The strongest YES path is that the Court grants certiorari in Buenrostro-Mendez itself — either in a near-term order consolidating it with Rhoney for argument on the identical § 1225(b)(2)(A) question, or standing alone — a scenario both the Solicitor General and petitioners have explicitly floated in briefing, and one made plausible by the fact that Buenrostro-Mendez remains procedurally undisposed (no denial, hold, or GVR) as of Oct. 9, 2026. NOT FOUND: No scheduled conference date for No. 26-43 after Sept. 28, 2026; no SCOTUS order list entry formally "holding" 26-43 pending Rhoney; no statement from the Court explaining why 26-43 was omitted from the Oct. 1, 2026 grant list.

YES means: the Supreme Court issues an order explicitly granting a writ of certiorari in No. 26-43, Buenrostro-Mendez v. Blanche, on or before Dec. 31, 2026. - [2026-10-01] At its long conference the Court granted certiorari on the identical statutory question via the companion case Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha (No. 26-104) rather than Buenrostro-Mendez, and multiple contemporaneous sources (Ballotpedia, Deseret News, CBS, davisvanguard.org) confirm Rhoney — not 26-43 — is the case now on the Court's 2026-27 merits docket. https://news.ballotpedia.org/2026/10/05/robe-gavel-scotus-begins-2026-2027-term/ - [2026-10-09] A direct re-fetch of the official docket for No. 26-43 shows the last entry is still the Sep 25 2026 Letter of petitioners Victor Buenrostro-Mendez, et al. received — no subsequent conference distribution, relisting, grant, denial, hold, or GVR order appears, meaning the petition has sat without any docket action for two full weeks since the Oct. 1 order list issued. https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-43.html - [2026-10-06] Legal commentary (davisvanguard.org) frames Oct. 1 as the Court having already "agreed to hear" the mandatory-detention question through Rhoney, strongly implying Buenrostro-Mendez's independent role is now reduced to a secondary vehicle rather than a case still competing for its own grant. https://davisvanguard.org/2026/10/supreme-court-immigration-detention/ - [2026-10-07] Analysis of the grant states "Oral argument is expected sometime between January and April 2027" in Rhoney — meaning the lead case won't even be argued, let alone decided, before the Jan. 1, 2027 market close, which is the Court's normal predicate for disposing of held companion petitions like 26-43 (grant, deny, or GVR) only after the lead case is resolved. - [2026-10-05] The government's own alternative request in the companion Rhoney briefing was to "hold" Buenrostro-Mendez pending the lead case's resolution rather than grant it outright, a disposition path the Court has visibly not rejected given the total docket silence on 26-43 since Sept. 25. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/26/26-104/428500/20261005150833296_395847_tst_BRIEF.pdf - [2026-09-03] The docket's own procedural history shows 26-43 was already "Rescheduled" once before the Sept. 28 conference, confirming the Court was actively deferring action on this specific vehicle even before choosing Rhoney as the lead case — a pattern of delay, not urgency. https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-43.html - [general SCOTUS practice] When the Court selects one case from a cluster of circuit-split petitions as its plenary-review vehicle, the standard disposition for the others is to hold them on the docket (no grant, no denial) until the lead case is decided, then dispose of them by GVR or denial after that ruling — a sequence that, given Rhoney's argument not occurring until at least January 2027, cannot plausibly produce an outright "cert granted" docket entry for 26-43 before Jan. 1, 2027. - [2026-10-07] Separate commentary (camposlawfirm.com) continues to describe Buenrostro-Mendez as merely "one" of three parallel petitions the Court "weighs taking up," rather than as a case already accepted, underscoring that as of the latest reporting its own cert status remains formally undecided and not independently granted. https://camposlawfirm.com/detention-without-bond-the-supreme-court-weighs-taking-up-ices-policy/ BOTTOM LINE: With the Court having already used Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha as its vehicle to grant review of the identical statutory question on Oct. 1, 2026, and the docket for No. 26-43 showing zero further action (no relist, no grant, no hold order) as of Oct. 9, 2026, the structurally likely and historically typical outcome is that Buenrostro-Mendez will simply sit held on the docket — not independently granted — through at least the Rhoney argument (expected Jan.–April 2027), making a cert grant specifically in 26-43 before Jan. 1, 2027 unlikely. NOT FOUND: No order explicitly "holding" No. 26-43 pending Rhoney has been docketed as of Oct. 9, 2026; no scheduled conference date for 26-43 after Sept. 28, 2026 appears anywhere in the official docket.