A federal appeals court has ruled that US immigration authorities cannot hold long-settled immigrants in detention indefinitely without justifying it to a judge. On July 2, 2026, the Fifth US Circuit Court of Appeals held 2–1 that people detained under the government's mandatory-detention policy must receive a bond hearing within 90 days, at which the government has to give an individualized reason — dangerousness or flight risk — for keeping them locked up. The decision covers Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, the states with some of the largest immigration detention capacity in the country, and it directly contradicts rulings from other appeals courts, making Supreme Court review likely.
Background
Since July 2025, the administration has applied a mandatory-detention policy to people who entered the United States without inspection, treating them as "unadmitted" under section 1225(b)(2)(A) of the immigration statute — a reading that allows detention without bond for the entire duration of removal proceedings, however long those take. In February 2026, a different Fifth Circuit panel accepted that statutory reading in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi. The three men at the center of the new case — Ignacio Sosnava Rodriguez, Miguel Angel Gomez Alvarado and Alejandro Villegas Angel — had each lived in Texas for more than a decade, had no criminal histories, and are fathers of US-citizen children. All three were detained by ICE after routine traffic stops between November 2025 and February 2026, and federal district judges in the Western District of Texas ordered them released on due-process grounds. The government appealed.
What exactly the court decided
Writing for the majority, Judge Leslie H. Southwick (a George W. Bush appointee) held that the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause applies to people who have built lives in the United States over years, even if they entered unlawfully. The statute may authorize detention, the court said, but the Constitution requires a check: a hearing must be held within 90 days of the start of detention, and the government "must articulate an individualized justification for further detention without bond." Judge James E. Graves Jr. concurred; Judge Cory Wilson dissented. Importantly, the ruling does not stop removal proceedings themselves — the three men still face deportation cases in immigration court — and the court framed its holding around long-term residents, not people recently arrested at the border, who can still be held until removal.
Before vs after (in the Fifth Circuit)
- Before: people who entered without inspection could be detained without any bond hearing for the full length of their removal case, under the administration's July 2025 policy.
- After: detention beyond 90 days requires a hearing where the government shows individualized dangerousness or flight risk.
- Unchanged: removal proceedings continue; recent border arrivals remain subject to detention until deportation.
Who it affects
The ruling matters most for long-settled undocumented residents of Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi and for mixed-status families — a US-citizen spouse or children with a parent in removal proceedings. Someone detained after a traffic stop, as all three plaintiffs were, now has a route to ask for release on bond after 90 days rather than waiting out a multi-year court backlog in detention. It does not create any new immigration status, and it does not help people detained shortly after crossing the border. For anyone weighing a move to the United States, the case is also a snapshot of the current legal climate: detention policy is being fought circuit by circuit, and rules can differ sharply depending on which state you live in. Our United States guide at /country-guides/united-states covers the visa categories that avoid this territory entirely.
What this means in practice
People with a detained family member in the Fifth Circuit should ask their attorney about requesting a bond hearing under this decision — legal-aid organizations and the American Immigration Lawyers Association maintain referral directories. The Department of Homeland Security said it disagrees with the ruling and remains "confident in its legal position," so the decision could be appealed to the full Fifth Circuit or the Supreme Court, and the 90-day rule could be paused while that happens. Three other federal appeals courts have ruled against the mandatory-detention policy, two have upheld it, and the split is exactly the kind of disagreement the Supreme Court exists to resolve.
When it takes effect
The ruling was issued July 2, 2026 and binds federal courts in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. The government has not yet said whether it will seek review by the full Fifth Circuit or the Supreme Court.
What is not yet confirmed
Whether the government will appeal, and whether the 90-day hearing requirement will be stayed while any appeal is pending. Detained individuals and their families should confirm the current state of the rule with a licensed immigration attorney before relying on it.
Key Takeaway
In Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, ICE can no longer hold long-term residents beyond 90 days without justifying the detention to a judge — but the ruling is likely headed for the Supreme Court.