Reyes Suarez v. Thompson — ordered bond hearing for ICE detainee held beyond 90 days

Reported / Citable

Background

Javier Reyes Suarez was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at the Joe Corley Processing Center in Conroe, Texas, under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), the expedited removal statute. After being held for more than 90 days, Reyes Suarez filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging the legality of his continued detention. ICE respondents responded with a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the petition.

The Court’s Holding

The court granted the habeas petition in part, finding that Reyes Suarez’s 90-day detention under the expedited removal statute triggered an entitlement to a bond hearing under the Fifth Circuit’s recent decision in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Ortega, 2026 WL 1906557 (5th Cir. July 2, 2026). The court ordered that absent a bond hearing before August 7, 2026, respondents must release Reyes Suarez from custody. If the government seeks to hold a bond hearing, it must provide at least 48 hours’ notice and must articulate an individualized justification for continued detention without bond—not blanket detention under the statute alone.

Key Takeaways

• Detainees held beyond 90 days under § 1225(b)(2)(A) are entitled to a bond hearing in the Fifth Circuit
• The government cannot rely on the statute alone; it must demonstrate individualized justification for further detention
• The government had until August 7, 2026, to conduct the hearing or release the detainee
• The court denied respondents’ summary judgment motion and required ongoing status updates

Why It Matters

This decision applies the Fifth Circuit’s new Sosnava Rodriguez standard to immigrants detained during expedited removal proceedings, establishing a practical 90-day threshold after which individualized bond hearings become mandatory. For ICE and immigration detention practitioners, it signals that blanket detention authority under § 1225(b)(2)(A) does not survive indefinite confinement without a demonstrated, fact-specific basis for continued detention.

The ruling affects the Southern District of Texas and follows broader Fifth Circuit precedent requiring procedural hearings before prolonged immigration detention. Attorneys representing detained immigrants should flag the 90-day mark and demand bond hearings with advance notice if detention continues beyond that point.