Reported / Citable
Background
Joan Manuel Iriarte Finol, detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his continued detention. Iriarte Finol has been held under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) for more than 90 days. The respondents—including Pamela Bondi and other ICE officials—filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to uphold the detention.
The court’s decision rested on a recent Fifth Circuit ruling issued just days earlier: Sosnava Rodriguez v. Ortega, No. 26-50183 (5th Cir. July 2, 2026). That decision established that detainees held beyond 90 days under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) are entitled to a bond hearing.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Andrew S. Hanen granted the habeas petition in part, holding that Iriarte Finol’s detention for more than 90 days triggered the bond-hearing requirement established in Sosnava Rodriguez. The court ordered respondents to either release the petitioner from custody or provide a bond hearing by August 7, 2026.
At any such hearing, the government must “articulate an individualized justification for further detention without bond,” per the Fifth Circuit standard. The court required at least 48 hours’ notice to the petitioner and counsel before the hearing or release. The court denied respondents’ motion for summary judgment and ordered supplemental filings: a joint update by August 14, 2026, on the outcome of any hearing and custody status, and an advisory by September 8, 2026, on whether the case can be closed.
Key Takeaways
- Detainees held under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) beyond 90 days have a statutory right to a bond hearing under the Fifth Circuit’s Sosnava Rodriguez standard.
- The government must provide individualized justification for continued detention without bond—a categorical denial is insufficient.
- District courts must enforce this right even when the government seeks summary judgment upholding indefinite detention.
Why It Matters
This order applies the Fifth Circuit’s July 2 decision requiring bond hearings for prolonged immigration detentions directly at the district court level. It signals that the 90-day threshold is enforceable and that the government cannot avoid hearings through summary judgment motions. For immigration practitioners and detainees, the decision clarifies that extended ICE detention no longer operates without judicial review of bond eligibility.
The decision may impact thousands of detainees held beyond 90 days, as it enforces a substantive limit on detention duration absent individualized government justification. Courts in the Fifth Circuit will likely see increased habeas filings from detainees nearing or exceeding the 90-day mark.