Federal Appeals Court Rules ICE Can Detain Immigrants Without Bond Hearings

A federal appeals court ruled 10-7 Friday, October 23, 2026, that ICE can detain certain immigrants throughout their deportation proceedings without granting them bond hearings, overturning an earlier decision requiring hearings within 90 days and allowing detention to continue even after prolonged confinement.

The full Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that immigrants who entered the United States without lawful admission have no constitutional right to individualized hearings assessing whether they pose a danger or flight risk before being detained while their immigration cases proceed. The decision establishes binding precedent in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested the three men whose challenges led to the ruling after they had lived in the United States for years. Ignacio Sosnava Rodriguez, a Mexican national, had lived in the country for more than 22 years before his December 2025 arrest. Alejandro Villegas Angel, also from Mexico, had lived in the United States 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 their 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.

Writing for the majority, Judge Cory Wilson concluded that immigrants who entered without inspection are subject to mandatory detention under Section 1225 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, even if they have lived in the country for decades.

In July 2025, the federal government expanded its interpretation of that provision 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 before holding them under the mandatory detention provision. Addressing their claimed right to freedom from physical confinement, he wrote that immigrants could secure their release by leaving the country.

"They can do so at any moment by agreeing to leave the country," Wilson wrote.

Detention throughout removal proceedings can satisfy constitutional due process protections while deportation remains a viable outcome, according to the majority. The three men had been held for periods ranging from three weeks to approximately three months, and the court said their claims did not establish a separate constitutional violation based on the length of confinement.

Seven judges dissented, with Judge Leslie Southwick arguing that immigrants detained inside the United States have constitutional protections requiring an opportunity to challenge prolonged confinement. Judge Dana Douglas separately warned that the majority's reasoning gave immigration authorities sweeping detention powers without adequate judicial safeguards.

A federal judge in Texas began applying the ruling the same day it was issued. U.S. District Judge Xavier Rodriguez suspended government response deadlines in certain immigration detention cases involving claims that prolonged confinement violates constitutional protections.

On October 1, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a related dispute in 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 affect which detention rules apply to immigrants arrested within the country, while the Fifth Circuit's separate constitutional holding will continue to govern comparable cases in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi unless overturned.