The Trump administration has formally requested the Supreme Court to authorize mandatory immigration detention without bond hearings, a policy that applies to some noncitizens who have resided in the United States for years. This legal challenge targets a May ruling by a 2-to-1 panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which determined that the administration's interpretation of the law was incorrect. The request highlights a significant division in the federal judiciary, as two other appeals courts have upheld the policy while three have struck it down, resulting in thousands of active lawsuits across the country.

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer urged the justices to address what he described as a "critically important question of immigration law." The filing arrives shortly after the Supreme Court's conservative 6-3 majority granted the administration two victories on Thursday, allowing the removal of protections for hundreds of thousands of Haitian and Syrian immigrants. The administration's current petition seeks a definitive ruling to unify conflicting lower court decisions.

The specific cases reviewed by the 6th Circuit involved citizens of Mexico, El Salvador, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Guatemala who had lived in the U.S. for extended periods prior to their arrest by Immigration and Customs Enforcement or Customs and Border Protection. The appellate court ruled that the administration had misread the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. Furthermore, the court concluded that mandatory detention without bond hearings violated the detainees' due process rights as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.

At the heart of the dispute is a 2024 decision by the Department of Homeland Security. This decision reclassified noncitizens who were already living within the United States as "applicants for admission," a category previously reserved primarily for those arriving at the border. This reclassification subjected these long-term residents to mandatory detention, thereby eliminating their eligibility for bond hearings. The Supreme Court's decision on this matter will have profound implications for the due process rights of noncitizens and the future of immigration enforcement policy.

President Donald Trump warned on Friday that any country moving forward with digital services taxes targeting major U.S. technology companies would face immediate 100% tariffs. In a post on Truth Social, Trump stated the U.S. would impose a 100% tariff on goods imported from any nation that enacts such a tax affecting American firms, specifically naming Meta Platforms, Inc., Alphabet Inc., and Amazon.com, Inc. as targets of these measures. The threatened tariffs would supersede trade deals made with the country, whether implemented, signed, or not, significantly escalating the potential trade conflict.

Scope of the Tariff Threat

Trump specifically pointed to numerous European countries considering digital services taxes, arguing the measures unfairly single out American technology giants. Digital services taxes are typically designed to tax revenue generated by the world's largest digital companies from activities such as online advertising, digital marketplaces, and social media platforms. More than a dozen countries have already implemented similar taxes.

Precedent and Legal Authority

Trump has repeatedly opposed digital services taxes, arguing they discriminate against U.S. businesses. Last year, he threatened to halt trade negotiations with Canada over its proposed digital services tax, a measure Ottawa ultimately withdrew shortly before it was scheduled to take effect. Despite Trump's latest warning, legal questions remain over whether he can unilaterally impose such sweeping tariffs. In February, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Trump's reciprocal tariff framework, ruling that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not grant the administration authority to impose individualized tariffs. Hours after that ruling, Trump signed an executive order establishing a new 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, though tariffs imposed under that provision are limited to 150 days unless Congress approves an extension.