The full Fifth Circuit ruled 10-7 on October 23 that detained immigrants who entered the country without being admitted have no constitutional right to a Bond hearingA hearing in which an immigration judge decides whether a noncitizen detained by DHS may be released from custody and, if so, under what bond. Eligibility depends on which detention law applies to the person, and immigration judges have no authority over bond for some groups, such as those subject to mandatory detention.See it in the glossary. The New Orleans-based court’s decision applies in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, Reuters reported, and it reverses course from a July panel decision that would have required a hearing within 90 days.
A bond hearing is where an Immigration judgeAn attorney appointed by the Attorney General who presides over removal proceedings in immigration court, part of the Executive Office for Immigration Review.See it in the glossary decides whether a detained person can be released while their case moves forward, weighing factors such as danger to the community and flight risk.
What the Fifth Circuit decided about bond hearings
Judge Cory Wilson, appointed by President Donald Trump, wrote the majority opinion, the Texas Tribune reported. The court held that people who were never legally admitted are entitled only to the rights Congress has given them by statute, regardless of how long they have lived in the country or whether they have a criminal record.
Wilson also wrote that people in custody can end their detention by agreeing to leave the country. Judge Andrew Oldham concurred.
Judge Leslie Southwick, appointed by President George W. Bush, dissented. He wrote that the ruling puts an “impenetrable wall” between the Constitution and long-term residents.
The case behind the ruling
The decision came in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Ortega, No. 26-50183, which combined appeals involving three men: Ignacio Sosnava Rodriguez, Miguel Angel Gomez Alvarado and Alejandro Villegas Angel. Texas state troopers arrested them during traffic stops between November 2025 and February 2026 and turned them over to ICE, according to the Tribune. Each had lived in the United States for at least 14 years and has U.S. citizen children.
Federal district courts in Texas granted the men’s habeas petitions, finding that holding them without an individualized hearing violated the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, according to the National Immigration Project, which represents them. The men were released, and the government appealed.
How the court got here
In July 2025, the administration announced that anyone arrested by ICE is not entitled to a bond hearing, however long they have been in the country, the Tribune reported. Before that, people who had lived in the United States for months or years could challenge their detention.
The Fifth Circuit adopted the administration’s reading of the immigration law in February. On July 2, a divided three-judge panel held that ICE could not constitutionally detain people for more than 90 days without a bond hearing, Reuters reported. On July 10, the full court agreed to rehear the case and vacated that panel opinion.
Who the ruling covers and who it does not
The decision binds federal courts in the Fifth Circuit only. The Tribune noted, though, that the administration has transferred many immigrants from other states to detention centers in Texas. The ruling also does not stop detainees who entered the country legally from filing habeas petitions.
Appeals courts have divided over the no-bond policy. In September, the Ninth Circuit let a class of AsylumProtection granted to a person already in the United States or at a port of entry who meets the definition of a refugee and cannot safely return to their country.See it in the glossary seekers continue their due process challenge to detention without individualized bond hearings.
How it fits with the Supreme Court case
The Supreme Court agreed on October 1 to hear a separate case, Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, on whether the detention statute requires no-bond detention. The justices are considering only the statutory question, Reuters reported, not the constitutional one the Fifth Circuit answered on Friday.
Reactions and what comes next
James Percival, a lawyer at the Department of Homeland Security, called the ruling a big win for mandatory detention in a social media post. Rebecca Cassler, a senior litigation attorney at the American Immigration Council who argued the case, said the decision leaves due process rights hollow for immigrants in the three states.
Gracie Willis, an attorney with the National Immigration Project, said the group is still weighing its legal options and has not decided whether to seek Supreme Court review.
For another recent bond decision, see our report on the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)The administrative body within the Department of Justice that hears appeals from immigration judges and certain USCIS decisions.See it in the glossary ruling in Matter of M-S-V-.