⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

Nathaniel Sterling challenges his return to immigration detention after years out on bond. An immigration judge released him in twenty eighteen after finding him neither dangerous nor likely to flee. ICE later declared the bond breached for missed check-ins, but Sterling says he never received the notices. He was arrested again in December twenty twenty-five. At a new bond hearing, the government relied on police reports from several arrests, including firearm and driving incidents. Sterling says those arrests produced no criminal convictions and the reports were not adequately corroborated. The immigration judge nevertheless found him dangerous and refused release. Sterling filed a habeas petition, asking a federal court to review the legality of his custody. The district court denied it, and he appealed to the Second Circuit. Immigration bond concerns release during removal proceedings, not guilt on criminal charges. The hearing used a clear and convincing evidence standard: a higher burden than simply more likely than not, but below proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Section twelve twenty-six allows detention or release on bond, but subsection E restricts court review of discretionary bond decisions. Listen for the line between correcting legal or constitutional errors and simply reweighing the evidence of danger, as well as the notice required before renewed detention. Sterling's counsel will argue that the procedures and evidentiary standards were legally inadequate.

Sterling v. Blanche (No. 26-1724) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued October 14, 2026.