On October 23, 2026, the full Fifth Circuit ruled 10–7 that people detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) after entering without inspection have no due-process right to an individual bond hearing, even after many years in the U.S. It reversed three release orders and replaced the July panel decision that had required a hearing within 90 days.
On October 23, 2026, the full Fifth Circuit (17 active judges) reversed habeas grants for Ignacio Sosnava Rodriguez, Alejandro Villegas Angel and Miguel Angel Gomez Alvarado. Each had lived in the U.S. for more than a decade without inspection or admission and was detained by ICE after a traffic stop.
The holding: they were not entitled to individual hearings on dangerousness or flight risk before they could be lawfully detained during their removal proceedings, and the length of their detention raised no constitutional problem warranting habeas relief. The court vacated the release orders and ordered its mandate to issue at once.
The vote was 10–7. Judge Wilson wrote for the court, joined by Chief Judge Elrod and Judges Jones, Smith, Willett, Ho, Duncan, Engelhardt and Oldham. Judge Richman concurred in the judgment only. Judges Southwick, Haynes, Douglas and Higginson wrote dissents, joined in various combinations by Judges Stewart, Graves and Ramirez.
The majority relied on DHS v. Thuraissigiam (2020): admission status, not physical presence, decides what procedural rights an ‘applicant for admission’ has, and these petitioners remained applicants for admission. Relying on Demore v. Kim (2003), it held that detention pending removal without a bond hearing does not violate due process as long as it has a definite end point: removal or release.
This replaces the July 2, 2026 panel decision, which had held 2–1 that due process required a bond hearing within 90 days. The full court ordered rehearing on its own motion, stayed the release orders, and heard argument on September 24, 2026.
The court left some questions open. It said distinct due-process questions might arise if detention no longer served its immigration purpose or removal proceedings were used as a pretext, and it noted the petitioners had not argued that their removal was no longer practically attainable. Judge Richman expressed no view on detention under a different statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1226.
Short version: in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, if you entered the U.S. without inspection and ICE detains you under § 1225(b)(2)(A), the Constitution does not give you a right to a bond hearing where a judge decides whether you can be released while your case goes on. That is true even if you have lived here for many years.
In July a three-judge panel of the same court had said the opposite: that long-time residents must get a bond hearing within 90 days. The full court threw that decision out and reversed the three release orders.
The majority’s reasoning: what matters is whether you were ever lawfully admitted, not how long you have been here. People who entered without inspection are still treated as ‘applicants for admission’, and Congress can require them to be detained during their case without a hearing, as long as the detention ends with removal or release.
Seven judges disagreed. Judge Southwick wrote that the court had built ‘an impenetrable wall between the Constitution and these long-term residents’. Judge Haynes would have protected people like the three petitioners: more than ten years here, no criminal history, close American relatives.
What this does NOT decide: whether anyone wins their immigration case, whether detention could become unconstitutional if it stops serving its immigration purpose, or what rules apply to people detained under a different statute. It applies in the Fifth Circuit only.