Reported / Citable
Background
Francisco Javier Salazar Gutierrez had lived in the United States for 25 years and had no criminal history apart from minor traffic violations. Immigration authorities took him into custody on July 8, 2026, charged him as removable for being present without admission or parole, and detained him while his removal proceedings remained pending.
The government maintained that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) required his detention. It moved for summary judgment and asked the district court to stay its ruling because the Fifth Circuit had stayed the district court judgments pending en banc rehearing in Sosnava Rodriguez. The court rejected the requested stay, reasoning that the Fifth Circuit’s one-sentence order did not bar all habeas relief based on due-process theories beyond those involved in the stayed judgments.
The Court’s Holding
The court agreed that Salazar Gutierrez fell within § 1225(b)(2)’s mandatory-detention regime under the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi. It nevertheless held that the statute violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause as applied to him because his detention lacked an individualized justification and did not reasonably relate to the purpose for which he was confined.
Granting the habeas petition in part and denying the government’s motions to stay and for summary judgment, the court ordered his release within 48 hours. It also barred the government from re-detaining him during his removal proceedings unless an immigration judge first holds a hearing at which the government proves by clear and convincing evidence that he poses a flight risk or danger to the community.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen may fall within § 1225(b)(2)’s mandatory-detention provision yet still establish that detention is unconstitutional as applied under the Fifth Amendment.
- The Fifth Circuit’s stay pending en banc rehearing in Sosnava Rodriguez did not, in the district court’s view, foreclose habeas relief based on materially different due-process reasoning.
- The remedy was immediate release rather than merely a bond hearing, with any renewed detention conditioned on advance process and proof by clear and convincing evidence.
Why It Matters
The decision recognizes an as-applied substantive due-process limit on mandatory immigration detention even when circuit precedent places the detainee within § 1225(b)(2). It emphasizes that long residence, lack of criminal history, and the absence of an individualized justification can make civil detention constitutionally unreasonable.
The order also provides a consequential remedial framework: prompt release, return of personal and identity documents, notice to counsel or a next friend, and protection against re-detention without an immigration-court hearing and a heightened burden of proof.