New York Governor Kathy Hochul pardoned a convicted felon in late August, and in doing so, wiped a major immigration case off the Supreme Court’s docket before the justices could hear a single word of oral argument. The case, Genalo v. Black, was the Trump administration’s best vehicle for challenging a Second Circuit ruling that grants noncitizens detained for deportable offenses a constitutional right to bond hearings. Now that vehicle is gone.
The pardon went to Keisy Guerrero Mariano, a lawfully present Dominican citizen who pleaded guilty to second-degree assault, a felony, stemming from a 2015 conviction for which he served time. By erasing that conviction, Hochul made Mariano no longer deportable, which rendered his role in the case meaningless. Solicitor General John Sauer agreed Friday that Genalo v. Black is now moot, Fox News Digital reported.
The timing was not subtle. Hochul issued the pardon just as the administration’s brief was due, a move that effectively killed the appeal at the moment it mattered most.
The Trump administration had argued before the Supreme Court that noncitizens, including green card holders, do not have a legal right to a bond hearing during prolonged detention if they committed crimes that qualify as grounds for mandatory deportation. The government’s position was straightforward: federal immigration law authorizes mandatory detention for certain criminal aliens, and no judge-made bond hearing requirement should override that.
The Second Circuit disagreed. In May 2024, the appeals court ruled that the government must grant noncitizens a bond hearing once their detention becomes “unreasonably long.” Failing to do so, the court held, would violate the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause. That ruling overturned an earlier decision by Judge John P. Cronan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, who had denied Mariano’s habeas corpus petition in November 2021.
The Supreme Court agreed on June 15 to hear the case. For the administration, it was a chance to settle a circuit split and reassert the federal government’s authority over immigration detention. For governors and advocacy groups opposed to the administration’s enforcement posture, it was a threat.
Hochul, described by Fox News Digital as “staunchly opposed to President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement crackdown,” found a way to make the threat disappear. Her office did not respond to a request for comment.
Mariano’s legal history stretches back more than a decade. He was convicted of second-degree assault in 2015 and served time for it. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested him in 2020 on the basis of that conviction. He spent nearly two years in ICE detention before being released in 2022, not because a court found his detention unlawful, but because of a nationwide injunction requiring the release of detainees due to COVID-19 health risks.
After the Second Circuit’s May 2024 ruling overturned Judge Cronan’s denial of his habeas petition, Mariano became a central figure in the administration’s Supreme Court appeal. Then Hochul stepped in with a pardon.
The case had a second plaintiff, too, Carol Williams Black, a Jamaican national convicted in New York in 2000 of sexually abusing a minor under the age of 11. But the Supreme Court had already ruled Black’s portion of the case moot after he left the United States and filed a court declaration stating he would not return. That left Mariano as the sole remaining plaintiff. When Hochul pardoned him, the entire case collapsed.
Iowa Solicitor General Eric Wessan did not hold back. He posted on X that the move was, in his view, a brazen use of executive power to obstruct both deportation and judicial review simultaneously.
“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 followed up with a broader question about where this kind of tactic leads. The pattern of Democratic officials using legal maneuvers to frustrate immigration enforcement is not new, but using a gubernatorial pardon to kill a Supreme Court case mid-briefing is a level of procedural aggression that caught even seasoned legal observers off guard.
“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”
That question deserves an answer. Hochul’s office has not provided one.
Sauer stated that the Trump administration will seek an “alternative vehicle” to challenge the Second Circuit’s 2024 ruling. Just The News reported that the administration intends to bring the bond hearing issue before the Supreme Court during its 2026–27 term, which begins in October. Until the justices take up a case and rule, the question of whether prolonged immigration detention triggers a constitutional right to a bond hearing remains open.
In the meantime, the Second Circuit’s ruling stands. Within that circuit’s jurisdiction, the government must provide bond hearings once detention crosses an undefined threshold of “unreasonably long.” The practical effect: criminal aliens who would otherwise face mandatory detention pending deportation now have a judicial avenue to seek release. The Supreme Court’s docket is no stranger to cases where lower courts have expanded rights in ways that complicate federal enforcement, but the Hochul pardon removed the administration’s most direct path to a resolution.
The administration must now identify a new case with the right procedural posture, a detained noncitizen with a qualifying criminal conviction, within the Second Circuit’s jurisdiction, whose case has not been mooted by release, departure, or executive clemency. That is a narrower needle to thread than it sounds, and Hochul’s pardon demonstrates that determined state officials can sabotage the process even when a case reaches the highest court in the land.
Consider what actually happened here. A governor used her pardon power not to correct an injustice, not to free someone wrongly convicted, but to shield a convicted felon from deportation and, simultaneously, to prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on a question of national immigration law. The pardon served no public safety purpose. It served a political one.
Mariano pleaded guilty. He served time. ICE detained him lawfully. A federal district judge denied his habeas petition. The only reason the case reached the Supreme Court at all was because the Second Circuit created a new constitutional requirement for bond hearings that the government wanted to challenge. Hochul’s pardon did not vindicate Mariano’s rights. It denied the Supreme Court the chance to decide whether those rights exist in the first place.
This is the kind of procedural gamesmanship that corrodes public trust in legal institutions. When governors can veto Supreme Court cases by pardoning the parties, the rule of law becomes a game of who can move faster, the federal government enforcing its statutes, or state executives dismantling the cases one defendant at a time.
The Trump administration has shown willingness to bring its legal fights to the Supreme Court on multiple fronts. Sauer’s promise to find an alternative vehicle suggests the administration is not backing down. But the delay is real, the precedent is dangerous, and the Second Circuit’s ruling remains in force.
Hochul has not explained why she pardoned a convicted felon whose assault case had nothing to do with wrongful conviction, prosecutorial misconduct, or any of the traditional justifications for executive clemency. She has not said whether she consulted with federal officials before issuing a pardon that destroyed a pending Supreme Court case. She has not addressed whether she would do it again.
Fox News Digital reached out to her office. No response came.
The silence is its own kind of answer. When a governor pardons a felon to block the Supreme Court and then refuses to explain why, the public is left to judge the act by its consequences. And those consequences are plain: a convicted criminal walks free, a federal case dies, and the question of whether the government can detain deportable aliens without a bond hearing remains unanswered.
Taxpayers, lawful immigrants, and communities that bear the cost of failed enforcement deserve better than a governor who treats the pardon power as a political weapon, and then hides behind silence when asked to account for it.
By signing up, you agree to receive newsletters and promotional content from American Frontline News and selected publications in the American Digest Media Network, operated with Patriot Mom Digest LLC, and you accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time.
By signing up, you agree to receive newsletters and promotional content from American Frontline News and selected publications in the American Digest Media Network, operated with Patriot Mom Digest LLC, and you accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time.