The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled Thursday that immigrants held under a federal detention statute are entitled to due process and must receive a bond hearing within 90 days if they remain in custody.
In a 2-1 decision issued July 2, the court affirmed habeas rulings for three longtime residents of the United States who had been detained without bond under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), a statute applied to noncitizens designated as “applicants for admission.” The majority ruled that the U.S. Constitution requires the government to justify continued detention through an individualized hearing evaluating dangerousness, flight risk, or another valid basis.
The ruling applies in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi—the states under the Fifth Circuit’s jurisdiction. The court held that while the government may hold such detainees for up to 90 days, it cannot hold them longer without a bond hearing.
Circuit Judge Leslie Southwick, writing for the majority, stated that the Constitution’s due process protections apply to people who have lived in the United States for years, even if they initially entered the country without inspection. The opinion emphasized that physical presence and long residence—not statutory admission status alone—control the scope of constitutional protection.
The court rejected the government’s argument that the statute permits mandatory, indefinite detention without any individualized review. The majority noted that the government cannot rely solely on the statute to evade constitutional scrutiny when detention becomes prolonged.
Furthermore, the majority observed that the government had failed to show that the mandatory detention of this specific group was narrowly supported by evidence of dangerousness or flight risk, distinguishing it from other immigration detention regimes previously upheld by the Supreme Court.
The case involved Ignacio Sosnava Rodriguez, Alejandro Villegas Angel, and Miguel Angel Gomez Alvarado. All three entered the United States more than a decade ago, have no criminal history, and are fathers of U.S. citizens, according to the opinion.
Sosnava Rodriguez entered the country in 2004, Villegas Angel in 2011, and Alvarado in 2012. All three were detained following traffic stops in Texas and subsequently challenged their confinement in federal court.
The district courts had previously ordered their release, a move the Fifth Circuit ruled was proper. The opinion noted that Sosnava Rodriguez was released on Feb. 27, 2026, while Villegas Angel and Alvarado were released on March 5, 2026.
Judge Cory Wilson dissented, arguing that the statute itself explicitly authorizes mandatory detention without bond hearings and that the majority’s rule lacks a clear limiting principle. Wilson maintained that the petitioners had received the process due to them under the law and that the Constitution does not mandate additional hearings.
Judge James Graves Jr. concurred in the judgment but argued that the constitutional violation was more severe than the majority acknowledged. Graves wrote that detained noncitizens should receive hearings within 30 days and advocated for pre-deprivation hearings for future detainees.
The ruling could affect thousands of immigrants currently detained under the same statute across the Fifth Circuit, which includes some of the nation’s largest immigration-detention centers. The majority stated that the executive branch must now establish procedures to provide bond hearings for individuals held under section 1225(b)(2)(A) beyond the 90-day window.
Because the decision fundamentally addresses prolonged immigration detention and due process, it is expected to intensify the national debate over the boundaries of immigration enforcement. While the government may still detain individuals without bond in specific cases, it must now successfully justify that custody in an individualized hearing.
Murad Awawdeh, president and CEO of the New York Immigration Coalition, praised the ruling for reaffirming basic constitutional principles.
“Every person, no matter where they were born, deserves to be treated with dignity and has the constitutional right to due process,” Awawdeh said. “We applaud the Appeals Court in this case for reaffirming this fundamental principle and making clear that the government cannot detain people without accountability.”
Awawdeh added that the decision marks a critical check on the executive branch, noting, “Families belong together, and Americans deserve a government that follows the law.”
Kishor Panthi
View More PostsKishor Panthi is the founder and editor-in-chief of Khasokhas and NepYork. He is the author of three books, “Kampan,” "UNTRANSLATABLE" and “Zero Mile.” He writes about social issues, immigration, and politics.
