Fifth Circuit rejects bond hearing right for detainees

The bond hearing ruling The full United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled 10-7 on October 23, 2026, that immigrants who entered the country without being admitted have no constitutional right to a bond hearing while their removal cases are pending. A bond hearing is a proceeding in which a judge decides whether a detained person is a danger to the community or a flight risk, and whether that person can return home while an immigration case plays out. The ruling covers people classified as applicants for admission and held under Section 1225(b)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The en banc decision in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Vergara reverses a July 2026 ruling from a three judge panel of the same court, in a case about immigration detention. That panel had ordered bond hearings within 90 days for the three men at the centre of the case. The full court also set aside three orders from district courts that had freed the men and barred renewed detention without a hearing. The decision binds Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, the three states covered by the Fifth Circuit. The three petitioners are Ignacio Sosnava Rodriguez, Alejandro Villegas Angel and Miguel Angel Gomez Alvarado. Rodriguez, a Mexican national, had lived in the United States without inspection or admission for more than 22 years. Angel, also a Mexican national, had lived in the country since 2011 and has two children who are United States citizens. Gomez Alvarado, a Honduran national, had lived in the country since 2012 and has one child who is a United States citizen. All three came into immigration custody after traffic stops in late 2025 or early 2026, and state troopers handed them to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ## What the majority said about bond hearings Judge Cory T. Wilson wrote the majority opinion. He said the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause does not require procedures beyond those Congress provided for people classified as applicants for admission. "Because petitioners have never been admitted to the United States, due process does not entitle them to additional proceedings beyond what Congress has provided," the opinion stated, according to Courthouse News. The court reasoned that Section 1225 requires detention while removal proceedings are pending but does not provide for a bond hearing. Wilson also wrote that whether a detained person is a flight risk or a danger to the public is legally irrelevant under the statute. The Texas Tribune reported that he added that immigrants who want to be free from detention can end it by agreeing to leave the country. The majority found no constitutional violation arising from the length of detention on this record, noting that the men had not specifically challenged detention duration as unconstitutional. Judge Andrew Oldham wrote a concurring opinion. The Texas Tribune reported that Oldham wrote that such immigrants receive exactly the same rights they would have if they had come through a legal port of entry, which are whatever rights Congress chooses to give them. The court ordered its mandate to issue forthwith, sending the cases back to the district courts at once. ## The dissent in the bond hearing case Seven judges dissented. Judge Leslie Southwick, who had led the July panel that ordered bond hearings, wrote one dissent. Judges Stephen Higginson and Dana Douglas each wrote dissents as well. The dissenting judges took the view that due process required an individual hearing on danger and flight risk, a position the majority rejected. The split reflects a wider disagreement among federal appeals courts on the same question. Nine other circuits have ruled the other way on whether a bond hearing is constitutionally required in comparable cases, according to reporting on the decision. That split among the circuits is the kind of disagreement the Supreme Court often steps in to resolve, although the court has not announced any plan to take up the Fifth Amendment question decided here. A separate Supreme Court case, Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, concerns the statutory reading of Section 1225 rather than the constitutional question, and briefing and argument dates have not yet been announced. For now, the practical effect is plain. Federal judges within the Fifth Circuit cannot use the constitutional theory the court rejected to impose a bond hearing that Congress did not provide for this category of detainees. The three men remain subject to immigration detention while their removal cases proceed, unless a higher court changes course or they agree to leave the country.