Fifth Circuit Rules 10-7 That ICE May Hold Migrants Without Bond Hearings

The full Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 10-7 on Friday, October 23, 2026, that ICE may detain certain immigrants throughout their deportation proceedings without granting them bond hearings. The en banc decision overturns an earlier ruling that required hearings within 90 days and allows detention to continue even after prolonged confinement. The holding establishes binding precedent in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi.

Who does the ruling affect?

The case arose from three men whom Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested inside the United States after they had lived in the country for years:

• Ignacio Sosnava Rodriguez, a Mexican national, had lived in the United States for more than 22 years before his December 2025 arrest.
• Alejandro Villegas Angel, also from Mexico, had lived in the country since 2011 and has two American-born children.
• Miguel Angel Gomez Alvarado, a Honduran national who entered in 2012, has a child who is a U.S. citizen.

Federal district judges ordered the men released after finding that detention without bond hearings violated the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process. A three-judge Fifth Circuit panel upheld those orders in July and required immigration authorities to provide hearings within 90 days to assess whether continued detention was justified.

What does the ruling change?

Writing for the majority, Judge Cory Wilson concluded that immigrants who entered without inspection fall under mandatory detention in Section 1225 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, even if they have lived in the country for decades. The decision strips them of any constitutional right to an individualized hearing on danger or flight risk before detention while their immigration cases proceed.

The shift traces back to July 2025, when the federal government expanded its interpretation of Section 1225 to cover immigrants arrested within the United States who had never been formally admitted. Previously, many such detainees were processed under Section 1226, which allows immigration judges to consider release on bond while deportation proceedings continue.

Wilson rejected the argument that the Constitution requires authorities to assess each detainee's dangerousness or flight risk under the mandatory detention provision. Addressing the men's claimed right to freedom from physical confinement, he wrote: "They can do so at any moment by agreeing to leave the country."

The majority found that detention throughout removal proceedings can satisfy constitutional due process while deportation remains a viable outcome. The three men had been held for periods ranging from three weeks to approximately three months, and the court held that their claims failed to establish a separate constitutional violation based on the length of confinement.

What did the dissent say?

Seven judges dissented. Judge Leslie Southwick argued that immigrants detained inside the United States hold constitutional protections that require an opportunity to challenge prolonged confinement. Judge Dana Douglas separately warned that the majority's reasoning handed immigration authorities sweeping detention powers without adequate judicial safeguards.

The ruling produced immediate effects on the same day it issued. U.S. District Judge Xavier Rodriguez, a federal judge in Texas, suspended government response deadlines in certain immigration detention cases involving claims that prolonged confinement violates constitutional protections.

Is the question settled?

Not nationally. On October 1, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a related dispute, Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, over whether immigrants arrested inside the United States fall under Section 1225's mandatory detention requirement or Section 1226's provisions allowing bond hearings. The justices' interpretation could determine which detention rules apply to immigrants arrested within the country.

Until then, the Fifth Circuit's separate constitutional holding will continue to govern comparable cases in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi unless overturned. Whether other circuits follow the majority's reasoning or the dissent's warnings remains an open question, and the Supreme Court's decision will test the ruling's reach beyond those three states.