Hochul's Pardon Kills Supreme Court Immigration Case, Sparks Iowa Backlash
New York Governor Kathy Hochul's decision to pardon a convicted felon has effectively ended a major Supreme Court case over immigration detention, drawing sharp criticism from Iowa's solicitor general and other legal experts who say the move was designed to shield the man from deportation and block a ruling on the issue.
The Supreme Court announced it will no longer hear oral arguments in Genalo v. Black, ruling the case moot after Hochul, a Democrat, pardoned Keisy Guerrero Mariano, a Dominican citizen with lawful permanent resident status who pleaded guilty to second-degree assault. The pardon came in late August, just as the Trump administration's brief was due, killing the administration's appeal arguing that noncitizens with green cards do not have a constitutional right to a bond hearing when detained for prolonged periods.
What Was the Supreme Court Case About?
The case centered on a 2024 ruling by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals that prolonged immigration detention can trigger a constitutional right to a bond hearing under the due process clause. The Trump administration had appealed that decision, arguing that noncitizens who have committed deportable crimes should not automatically receive bond hearings, no matter how long they are held.
Plaintiffs in the case included Carol Williams Black, a Jamaican national convicted in 2000 of sexually abusing a minor under age 11, and Mariano, who was arrested by ICE in 2020 over a 2015 second-degree assault conviction for which he served time, making him eligible for deportation.
Mariano spent nearly two years in ICE detention before being released in 2022 due to a nationwide injunction tied to COVID-19 health risks. A federal district court denied his habeas corpus request in November 2021, but the Second Circuit overruled that decision in May 2024, ruling that the government must grant bond hearings once detention becomes unreasonably long.
Why Did the Supreme Court Drop the Case?
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case on June 15, but the high court ruled Black's portion moot after he left the United States and filed a declaration that he would not return. Hochul's pardon of Mariano then eliminated the second plaintiff, leaving no live controversy for the court to decide.
Solicitor General John Sauer agreed Friday that the case is now moot but said the Trump administration will seek an alternative vehicle to challenge the Second Circuit's ruling. Sauer said the administration intends to find another case through which the Supreme Court can resolve the issue during its 2026-27 term.
Iowa's Solicitor General Speaks Out
Eric Wessan, Iowa's solicitor general, publicly criticized Hochul's decision, calling it a transparent attempt to avoid deportation and prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on the issue.
Pretty wild to fully pardon an aggravated felon to (1) stop the felon from getting deported and (2) stop the Supreme Court from ruling on an issue. (Especially as this litigation has been going on for years), Wessan posted on X.
Wessan praised Sauer's decision to continue fighting the Second Circuit's ruling and questioned how many other governors might follow Hochul's example.
I wonder how many non-American felons Governors like Hochul will choose to fully pardon and free to avoid them facing consequences for their actions, Wessan added.
What Does This Mean for Immigration Enforcement?
The Second Circuit's ruling remains in place for now, meaning noncitizens detained for prolonged periods in New York, Connecticut, and Vermont may still be entitled to bond hearings. The Trump administration has vowed to challenge that ruling through another case, but the timeline remains unclear.
For Iowans, the case highlights ongoing tensions between state and federal approaches to immigration enforcement. Iowa has taken a hard line on illegal immigration, with state leaders supporting border security measures and opposing sanctuary policies. Hochul's pardon, critics argue, undermines federal immigration law and rewards criminal behavior.
Hochul's office did not respond to requests for comment on the pardon or the criticism from Iowa officials.
What Happens Next?
The Supreme Court's decision to dismiss the case leaves the Second Circuit's bond hearing requirement intact for now. The Trump administration is expected to pursue another case to bring the issue back before the high court, but no specific case has been identified yet.
Legal experts say the administration may need to find a new plaintiff in a different circuit to create a split among appellate courts, which often prompts Supreme Court review. Until then, the Second Circuit's ruling stands as binding precedent in that circuit only.
For Iowa conservatives, the episode serves as a reminder of what they see as progressive governors using executive power to thwart federal immigration enforcement. The question now is whether the Supreme Court will get another chance to weigh in on the constitutional rights of detained noncitizens.