Full Fifth Circuit Rules Detained Immigrants Who Entered Illegally Have No Right to a Bond Hearing

The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled 10-7 on Friday that people who entered the country without being admitted, and who are held under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), have no due-process right to a bond hearing while their removal cases are pending. The ruling binds federal courts in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, the three states in the Fifth Circuit.

The en banc opinion in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Vergara (court PDF) reverses three district court orders that had freed the men and barred re-detention without a bond hearing. It also vacates a July panel decision that would have required bond hearings within 90 days.

The petitioners. According to the opinion:

• Ignacio Sosnava Rodriguez is a Mexican national who has lived in the U.S. "without inspection or admission for over twenty-two years." ICE detained him after a traffic stop in December 2025.
• Alejandro Villegas Angel is a Mexican national who has lived in the U.S. since 2011 and has two children who are U.S. citizens. Police stopped him in February 2026 for driving without a license and transferred him to ICE.
• Miguel Angel Gomez Alvarado is a Honduran national who has lived in the U.S. since 2012 and has one U.S.-citizen child. ICE detained him after a traffic stop in November 2025.

District judges in the Western District of Texas granted all three habeas petitions in February and March, and the men were released.

The holding. Judge Cory T. Wilson wrote for the majority. He was joined by Chief Judge Elrod and Judges Jones, Smith, Willett, Ho, Duncan, Engelhardt and Oldham. Judge Priscilla Richman concurred only in the judgment, making the tenth vote.

Wilson wrote that "there is no dispute that Petitioners enjoy the protections of the Fifth Amendment." But he said that because the men "have never been admitted to the United States, due process does not entitle them to additional proceedings beyond what Congress has provided before they may be detained pending removal."

The court also held that a bond hearing on dangerousness or flight risk would be beside the point, because those factors have no bearing on whether someone is "entitled to be admitted." On how long someone can be held, it said that "so long as removal remains a viable prospect, continued detention, or renewed detention in the case of an alien previously released, does not violate due process."

The statutory piece. The court did not decide the statutory question again. Earlier this year, in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, a Fifth Circuit panel held that § 1225(b)(2)(A) mandates detention for people found in the interior who were never admitted. In a concurrence, Oldham wrote that "our precedent says the aliens have no statutory right to bond."

The dissents.

• Southwick. Judge Leslie Southwick wrote the principal dissent, joined by Judges Stewart, Graves, Higginson, Douglas and Ramirez. He wrote that the court "has constructed an impenetrable wall between the Constitution and these long-term residents, a wall not designed, recognized, or even suggested by the Supreme Court."
• Haynes. Judge Haynes dissented separately. She would limit the right to people who have lived in the country more than 10 years, have no criminal history and have close American relatives.
• Douglas and Higginson. Judges Dana M. Douglas and Stephen A. Higginson also wrote dissents.

At the Supreme Court. The justices agreed on Oct. 1 to hear Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, the government's appeal of a Second Circuit ruling on the statutory question of which detention provision applies. A petition challenging the Fifth Circuit's Buenrostro-Mendez decision (No. 26-43) is still pending. So is the government's petition in a Sixth Circuit case, Putra v. Lopez-Campos (No. 25-1415), which Higginson called "the sole petition to squarely pose the due process question."

On Oct. 18, Radio Purple reported on border czar Tom Homan's complaint that habeas petitions and court orders are slowing deportations.