Supreme Court Adds Immigration, Religious Zoning, Military Divorce Cases to Docket

Why it matters locally: The Supreme Court's decision on immigration detention policies could affect individuals apprehended in Massachusetts, while the ruling on religious zoning may influence how RLUIPA is applied to religious institutions across the Commonwealth. Furthermore, the military divorce case could set a precedent for how Massachusetts divorce courts handle military benefits in settlements.

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court announced it will hear oral arguments in three new cases early next year. The cases involve the Trump administration's policy of detaining immigrants apprehended within the United States without bond hearings, a zoning dispute involving a religious institution in Kentucky, and a federal law affecting the former spouses of U.S. servicemembers. The court added these cases to its oral argument docket following its September 28 conference. Additional orders from that conference are anticipated on Monday, October 5, before the justices commence oral arguments for the 2026-27 term. In _Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha_, the justices granted a review request from the Trump administration regarding its policy for detaining noncitizens apprehended within the country's borders. The policy mandates detention for these individuals without a bond hearing while their deportation proceedings are underway. This approach relies on a federal immigration law provision stating that noncitizens "shall be detained" for removal proceedings if an immigration officer determines they are "not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted" to the United States. Historically, the government applied a different provision for noncitizens who had already entered the U.S., allowing the Attorney General to release them on bond or parole. Last year, the Trump administration began applying the mandatory detention provision to noncitizens apprehended domestically. Federal district judges have issued over 9,300 rulings against these mandatory detention guidelines since their implementation. However, federal appeals courts have issued conflicting rulings on the guidelines' legality. The administration had initially requested the court consider a different case, _Putra v. Lopez-Campos_, on the same issue. The court, however, chose _Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha_. The court will also address _Missionaries of St. John the Baptist v. Frederic_, a case centered on the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). This 2000 federal law expands religious freedom protections for prisoners and religious organizations challenging zoning regulations. The case involves the Missionaries of Saint John the Baptist, a nonprofit group that sought to construct a shrine to the Virgin Mary, a plaza, walking path, and retaining wall next to Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic Church in northern Kentucky. The planned construction site is in a residential zone with strict building regulations. The local zoning board approved the group's permit and variances. Joel and Elizabeth Frederic, residents near the church, challenged this decision in state court, arguing the board misapplied local ordinances. The Missionaries of Saint John the Baptist countered that denying the permit would violate RLUIPA, which prohibits government officials from substantially interfering with religious practice through land use rules unless they demonstrate a compelling reason. A state trial court initially sided with the church, but an intermediate appeals court reversed that decision. The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed the appeals court's ruling, concluding that blocking the shrine would not violate RLUIPA because the rules for religious and nonreligious projects were consistent. The court also noted that the Missionaries of Saint John the Baptist could build a smaller shrine elsewhere on the church property. In _Marschner v. Marschner_, the court will examine a question concerning the authority of divorce courts to enforce divorce settlement provisions involving military benefits. The Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act (USFSPA) permits the division of military retirement pay in a divorce but exempts disability retirement pay and retirement pay waived for disability benefits. In a 2017 ruling, _Howell v. Howell_, the Supreme Court determined that if a veteran waived retirement pay to receive disability benefits, the USFSPA prohibited a state court from requiring compensation to a former spouse for the lost portion of retirement pay. The current case involves a divorce settlement where the veteran agreed to compensate his ex-wife if he received disability payments after their divorce, which would reduce his retirement pay. The North Dakota Supreme Court ruled this provision unenforceable, leading the ex-wife to appeal to the Supreme Court.