The Trump administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review a Fourth Circuit ruling that allowed Georgetown scholar Badar Khan Suri to challenge his immigration detention through a federal habeas petition while his removal proceedings continue.
The Supreme Court docket shows that the government filed its petition for a writ of CertiorariA request, called a petition for a writ of certiorari, asking the Supreme Court to review a lower court decision. The Court does not have to take the case and typically does so when it involves an unusually important legal principle or when federal appeals courts have read a law differently. In civil cases the petition generally must be filed within 90 days after judgment.See it in the glossary on September 21, 2026, in Trump v. Suri, No. 26-380. Suri’s response is due October 21. The Court has not decided whether it will hear the case.
What the government is asking the Supreme Court to decide
The petition focuses on a jurisdictional question under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The government argues that when a noncitizen’s challenge to detention also attacks the basis for removal, the INA requires those claims to proceed through the statutory petition-for-review process rather than through a separate habeas case in federal district court.
The petition points to provisions including 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(5), 1252(b)(9), and 1252(g), which channel judicial review of removal-related claims. The government asks the Supreme Court to decide whether those provisions prevent a person detained during Removal proceedingsThe formal court process, formerly called deportation, in which the government seeks to remove a noncitizen from the United States.See it in the glossary from using habeas corpus to raise claims that also bear on the legality of the removal case.
Why the case reached the Supreme Court
Suri, an Indian national who entered the United States in J-1 status for a postdoctoral fellowship at Georgetown University, was arrested by immigration authorities in March 2025. The government initiated removal proceedings after the Secretary of State made a determination under an INA provision concerning potentially serious adverse foreign-policy consequences.
Suri filed a habeas petition in the Eastern District of Virginia challenging his detention. The district court later ordered his release on bond. On July 23, 2026, the Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court had jurisdiction to hear the habeas petition and that the INA provisions invoked by the government did not strip that jurisdiction.
The government says the circuits are divided
The Supreme Court petition argues that the Fourth Circuit’s approach conflicts with decisions elsewhere, including the Third Circuit’s treatment of similar jurisdictional questions. The government says the disagreement matters because immigration detention and removal cases could proceed differently depending on the federal circuit in which a case arises.
The petition also points to litigation involving Mahmoud Khalil and other immigration detention cases as part of the developing disagreement over when federal district courts may hear constitutional habeas claims during ongoing removal proceedings.
What happens next
The filing does not mean the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case, and it does not itself change Suri’s custody status. The justices must first decide whether to grant certiorari. According to the Court’s docket, Suri’s response to the petition is due October 21, 2026.
If the Court grants review, the case could clarify how the INA’s judicial-review provisions interact with habeas challenges to immigration detention, an issue that could reach beyond Suri’s individual case.