The Fifth Circuit held 2–1 that the Due Process Clause entitles unadmitted immigrants held without bond under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) to a bond hearing within 90 days of detention, even though the statute itself provides none — affirming habeas relief for three long-term residents detained on routine traffic stops.
On July 2, 2026, a Fifth Circuit panel affirmed, 2–1, three district-court grants of habeas corpus to Ignacio Sosnava Rodriguez, Alejandro Villegas Angel, and Miguel Angel Gomez Alvarado — each a long-term U.S. resident (10+ years), each a parent of a U.S. citizen child, and each detained by ICE after a routine traffic stop despite having no criminal history.
The three men were held under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), which mandates detention without bond for anyone who entered the country without inspection, no matter how long they have since lived here — a reading the BIA adopted in September 2025 (Matter of Yajure Hurtado) and this same Fifth Circuit panel had upheld as a matter of statutory interpretation in February 2026 (Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi). This case decides the constitutional question Buenrostro-Mendez left open.
Judge Southwick's opinion holds that physical presence and years of residence — not formal statutory 'admission' — trigger Fifth Amendment due process protection, and that the Constitution requires the government to hold a bond hearing within 90 days of detention, at which it must articulate an individualized justification (dangerousness or flight risk) for continued confinement without bond.
Judge Graves concurred in the result but would go further: he argued the 90-day window is itself too long, that currently detained individuals should get a hearing within 30 days, and that people detained in the future should receive due process before detention begins, not after.
Judge Wilson dissented in full, arguing that under DHS v. Thuraissigiam (2020), admission status — not physical presence or duration — determines what process is due to an 'applicant for admission,' that Congress has plenary power to mandate detention categorically, and that the majority's 90-day rule has no basis in text or precedent. He also noted that under the majority's own standard, two of the three habeas grants were premature.
The ruling arrives the same month the Supreme Court granted certiorari (June 15, 2026) in Genalo v. Black to decide a closely related question — whether due process requires a bond hearing under a different mandatory-detention statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). The Fifth Circuit's holding here is likely to be part of that broader national reckoning, not the last word.
Short version: if you've lived in the U.S. for years without papers, and ICE picks you up, the government cannot hold you indefinitely without ever giving you a chance to ask a judge for bond — even though a 2025 policy change said immigration judges have no power to grant one.
Here's the twist that makes this case matter: the statute (§ 1225(b)(2)(A)) really does say 'shall be detained,' with no bond hearing built in, for anyone who is legally still an 'applicant for admission' — which, under a 2025 policy shift, now includes people who crossed the border years ago and have lived here ever since, evading detection the whole time. This court already agreed, back in February, that this is the correct reading of the statute.
What's new here is the court saying: the statute may say that, but the Constitution doesn't let it work that way in practice. If you've built a life here — a decade of residence, U.S. citizen children, no criminal record — the government has to give you a hearing on bond within 90 days, where it has to show you're actually a flight risk or a danger, not just detain you because a form technically classifies you as someone "at the border."
What this does NOT mean: it doesn't mean you win your immigration case, it doesn't cancel your removal proceedings, and it doesn't create a right to stay in the country. It only means you get a hearing on whether you can be released on bond while your case is still being decided.