Reported / Citable
Background
David Mexicano Lopez, a Mexican citizen, entered the United States without inspection in 2011, departed voluntarily in 2021, and reentered later that year. Immigration officials apprehended him in December 2024, served him with a notice to appear, and released him on his own recognizance. He was re-detained on March 12, 2026, and had remained in immigration custody for more than six months without a bond hearing.
An immigration judge ordered Mexicano Lopez removed on April 23, 2026, but he timely appealed, leaving the removal order nonfinal. He alleged no criminal history and asserted family ties in the United States, including a U.S.-citizen child. He sought habeas relief under the Fifth Amendment; the government sought summary judgment, maintaining that he was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225.
The Court’s Holding
Judge John A. Kazen granted the habeas petition in part, denied the government’s summary-judgment motion, and ordered Mexicano Lopez released under reasonable conditions by September 18, 2026. The court held that, as applied, his more-than-six-month civil detention without an individualized hearing violated procedural due process.
The court concluded that Fifth Circuit precedent interpreting § 1225 did not foreclose an as-applied due-process challenge. Applying the reasoning of its earlier decision in Lopez Moncebais v. Bondi and the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing framework, the court found that Mexicano Lopez had a protected liberty interest strengthened by his years of residence, family ties, employment history, and prior release while removal proceedings were pending. Because he had never received an individualized assessment of danger or flight risk, release—not a bond hearing—was the appropriate remedy.
Key Takeaways
- Mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225 does not foreclose an as-applied Fifth Amendment due-process challenge.
- More than six months of civil immigration detention without an individualized hearing violated due process on these facts.
- The court ordered release rather than a bond hearing and denied all other requested relief, including attorney’s fees.
Why It Matters
The decision adds to Southern District of Texas rulings recognizing that noncitizens detained as applicants for admission may still challenge prolonged detention without individualized process, even after the Fifth Circuit’s statutory holding in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi.
It also treats a prior release, established U.S. residence, and family connections as facts that can strengthen the detainee’s liberty interest when evaluating the constitutionality of continued civil detention.