Fifth Circuit rules unadmitted immigrants have no right to individualized bond hearings

Mixed · 2The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, ruled on Friday 23 October 2026 that immigrants who entered the country without lawful admission are not constitutionally entitled to individual bond hearings while their removal proceedings are pending. 1 2 Centre · 1The Times of India reports the vote was 10-7. The decision reversed an earlier ruling that had granted relief to three detained men: Ignacio Sosnava Rodriguez, Alejandro Villegas Angel and Miguel Angel Gomez Alvarado. 1 Centre · 1The men had challenged their detention through habeas corpus petitions. Federal district courts in Texas had ordered hearings, and a divided three-judge Fifth Circuit panel upheld those orders in July 2026, requiring hearings within 90 days. The full court reconsidered the cases and reversed. 1

Mixed · 2The court held that years or decades of residence and community ties do not create a constitutional right to a bond hearing for people never formally admitted. It wrote: "The Constitution does not entitle them to a bond hearing." 2 1 Mixed · 2The detention provision at issue is Section 1225(b)(2)(A) of Title 8, which covers applicants for admission. Fox News says the three men were held under the mandatory-detention statute and that the claim rested on the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. 1 2 Centre · 1The three men had lived in the US for years. Rodriguez had been there more than two decades. Villegas had been there since 2011 and has two US-citizen children. Gomez Alvarado, a Honduran national, has been there since 2012 and has one US-citizen child. 1

Mixed · 2Judge Leslie Southwick dissented. According to Fox News, Southwick noted that if the Supreme Court decides the statute was wrongly read, the constitutional question would have far less significance, though it "certainly has significance at the moment." 2 1 Centre · 1The ruling binds courts in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. The Times of India says it is limited to the category of detainees before the court and does not decide every immigration detention challenge. It adds that the men had not challenged the length of their detention as unconstitutional. 1 Right · 1Fox News places the ruling alongside a separate question before the Supreme Court. In Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, a Second Circuit case the justices agreed to hear this month, the issue is whether the mandatory-detention statute applies at all to longtime residents arrested inside the country. Oral argument has not been scheduled. 2

Right · 1Fox News describes a 9-2 circuit split. The Fifth and Eighth Circuits treat such immigrants as "applicants for admission" under Section 1225, subject to mandatory detention. Nine other circuits apply Section 1226, which allows bond. If the Supreme Court sides with the Second Circuit, the Rodriguez petitioners would likely also have a path to seek bond, which would substantially undercut Friday's ruling. 2 Right · 1Conservative legal experts quoted by Fox News say the ruling could help the administration in Rhoney. Michael Morley of Florida State University said a finding that detention does not violate due process may make the justices more likely to read the statute as permitting it. Hans von Spakovsky of Advancing American Freedom said he would be surprised if a majority of the Supreme Court disagreed. 2