On Thursday, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals dealt the Trump Justice Department (DOJ) a setback with a significant constitutional ruling regarding mandatory immigration detention. In a 2-1 decision, the Court affirmed lower court grants of habeas relief to three illegal aliens — Ignacio Sosnava Rodriguez, Alejandro Villegas Angel, and Miguel Angel Gomez Alvarado — and held that long-term illegal aliens held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) are entitled to individualized bond hearings after prolonged detention — 90 days under the court's rule..
This one's a bit in the weeds, so bear with me. First, some background:
For nearly three decades, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) generally treated aliens who had entered unlawfully but lived in the United States for years as detainees under § 1226(a), where they could seek release on bond. That changed, however, in late 2025 with the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) decision in Matter of Yajure Hurtado, which held that aliens who entered without inspection remain "applicants for admission" indefinitely and therefore are subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) without bond. Earlier this year, the 5th Circuit upheld that statutory interpretation in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi.
In this case, the three petitioners all:
- entered unlawfully more than a decade ago;
- have lived in the United States ever since;
- have no criminal histories;
- are fathers of U.S.-citizen children; and
- are seeking (or intend to seek) cancellation of removal.
The district courts granted habeas relief as to each of the petitioners, ordering their release unless the government provided individualized hearings.
ALSO SEE: Texas Scores Border Security Victory With New Decision by 5th Circuit
Here's where it gets a bit tricky. As noted, the Buenrostro-Menendez decision involved an interpretation of the statutory language. Here, the 5th Circuit is examining the constitutional implications.
The administration argued that because these individuals were never "admitted" to the country, they possess no 5th Amendment procedural due process rights regarding detention. But the 5th Circuit panel rejects that premise outright. One of the opinion's key statements is: "Statutory admission status does not decide when aliens gain due process rights." Instead, the panel says constitutional protections turn principally on physical presence and established connections within the United States — not on Congress's statutory labels.
In the opinion, authored by Judge Leslie Southwick (Bush 43), the court emphasizes that aliens who have developed substantial ties and long-term residence inside the United States receive greater constitutional protection than those stopped at or immediately after the border, going so far as to call the administration's attempt to equate their situation to being intercepted at the border as "a complete fantasy."
The court then turns to the question of what process is due. While recognizing that Congress may require detention initially, at some point, continued mandatory detention without any individualized determination becomes constitutionally problematic. Thus, the court holds these detainees are entitled to an individualized hearing on dangerousness and flight risk.
Judge Southwick sets the constitutional floor for that at 90 days of detention, while Judge James Graves (Obama) concurs separately because he believes the Constitution requires a hearing sooner. Judge Cory Wilson (Trump) dissented, contending that the majority "in its earnestness to keep Petitioners out of custody," improperly displaced Congress's constitutional authority over immigration.
The panel distinguished the Supreme Court's recent Mullin v. Al Otro Lado decision, emphasizing that Mullin involved migrants seeking entry from outside the country, while the petitioners here have lived in the United States for years and challenge only their continued detention without an individualized bond hearing.
SEE: Border Win: SCOTUS Rules Migrants in Mexico Haven't 'Arrived' in the US for Asylum Purposes
The end result here is that the three detainees retain their habeas relief, though the government can continue removal proceedings against them. Going beyond these individual petitioners, under this ruling, within the 5th Circuit, DHS must provide bond hearings after the constitutional threshold, which, as the court acknowledges, could affect thousands of detainees.
The administration is almost certain to seek further review, either through en banc rehearing or the Supreme Court.
Editor's Note: It’s America’s 250th birthday! Help RedState celebrate the greatest nation in history by honoring its past, defending its present, and preserving its future with reporting you can trust.
Join RedState VIP and use promo code AMERICA250 to receive 74% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member