The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that all undocumented immigrants are subject to mandatory detention, regardless of how long they’ve been in the U.S. This case involved three men from Texas: two Mexican nationals and one from Honduras. Ignacio Sosnava Rodriguez lived in the U.S. for over 22 years, while Alejandro Villegas Angel and Miguel Angel Gomez Alvarado arrived in 2011 and 2012, respectively. All three have U.S. citizen children and no criminal records.
After the traffic stop, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) picked up each person and detained them pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), which provides for the detention of “applicants for admission.” No bond hearing was held. All three filed habeas corpus petitions arguing that their detention without an individualized hearing violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Texas district courts agreed and ordered them released.
The government appealed and the Fifth Circuit consolidated the cases. In July 2026, a three-judge panel ruled for the men, holding that due process requires a bond hearing within 90 days of detention. A week later, the full court voted to rehear the case en banc and vacated the panel’s decision. The court heard arguments in September and ruled in October, sitting en banc.
The Sitting of the Court
This decision overrules Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi (Feb 2026), in which the Fifth Circuit had ruled that an individual who enters without inspection is a “applicant for admission” under the statute, regardless of when the entry occurred. The ruling mandated the detention of long-term residents.
Rodriguez and Sosnava raised the last constitutional question. Writing for the majority, Judge Wilson reasoned that “since they were never admitted, they are entitled only to the process provided by Congress in § 1225(b)(2)(A).” The key factor is whether you are admitted, not how long you were in the country. Normally, dangerousness and flight risk are considered at bond hearing, but they are not relevant to detention under this statute. The majority found that the duration of detention does not pose a constitutional problem so long as there is a clear endpoint to detention, such as removal or release at the conclusion of the proceedings.
There were seven judges in dissent. Judge Southwick said the majority had erected a barrier between the Constitution and long-term residents that the Supreme Court never intended.
The Importance
The order applies to those who entered without inspection. Those who entered on a visa and overstayed fall under a different detention provision (§ 1226(a)), which allows for bond.
Geography also matters. The ruling applies only to courts in Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. Most other circuits have construed the statute differently. Where you are detained can matter as much as where you are arrested. These decisions bind immigration judges in the Fifth Circuit, meaning someone transferred to a facility in Texas or Louisiana may not be able to obtain a bond hearing that would be available in other jurisdictions.
But that may not be the last word. The Supreme Court will hear Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha to decide if the mandatory detention statute applies to long-term residents arrested in the United States. The result could be important.
As always, ILBSG actively monitors ongoing U.S. immigration news. If you have questions about any U.S. immigration related issue, contact us. Working with an experienced attorney ensures you get the right advice based on the most recent laws. In an ever-evolving immigration policy landscape, it’s particularly critical you get the right advice.