Reported / Citable
Background
Three Mexican and Honduran nationals—Sosnava Rodriguez, Villegas Angel, and Gomez Alvarado—each entered the United States without inspection over a decade ago (in 2004, 2011, and 2012 respectively). All three established long-term residence, fathered U.S. citizen children, maintained clean criminal records, and filed or intended to file applications for cancellation of removal based on exceptional hardship to their citizen children. Between November 2025 and February 2026, each was detained by ICE during routine traffic stops in Texas.
The detentions occurred following the Department of Homeland Security’s September 2025 policy shift. Previously, for 29 years, DHS treated such long-term undocumented residents under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which permits discretionary bond release. In September 2025, the Board of Immigration Appeals reinterpreted the statute to apply 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A)—which mandates detention without bond for “applicants for admission” (those who entered without inspection)—regardless of how long the alien had resided in the country. Under this new interpretation, immigration judges lost authority to grant bond hearings for such detainees.
The three petitioners filed habeas corpus petitions in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, arguing their mandatory detention violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The district courts granted the writs, applied the Mathews v. Eldridge procedural due process test, found constitutional violations, and ordered the immediate release of each petitioner and prohibited re-detention without a bond hearing. DHS appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district courts’ orders in a decision with significant implications for immigration detention policy. The court held that aliens who have established long-term physical presence and connections in the United States—here, over a decade of residence—are entitled to Fifth Amendment Due Process protections, and that statutory language does not override this constitutional entitlement.
The court traced a century-long line of precedent establishing the “physical presence rule”: that all persons physically present in the United States, including unlawfully present aliens, receive Due Process protection. This principle, rooted in Wong Wing v. United States (1896) and repeatedly reaffirmed in cases including Yamataya v. Fisher (1903), Mezei (1953), Plyler v. Doe (1982), and Zadvydas v. Davis (2001), is not displaced by statutory “admission” status. The court rejected the Government’s attempt to rely on DHS v. Thuraissigiam (2020)—a case involving an alien detained 25 yards inside the border immediately after unauthorized entry—to strip due process rights from aliens with a decade of residence. Such an application, the court found, was “a complete fantasy” and inconsistent with Thuraissigiam’s own acknowledgment that aliens who have “acquired any domicil or residence within the United States” retain constitutional protections.
The court further held that statutory language mandating detention does not eliminate substantive due process rights. Relying on Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe, the Government argued that a statute’s silence on procedural protections means none are constitutionally owed. The court rejected this argument, distinguishing Doe (involving a sex offender registry with no fundamental right at stake) from the present case, where freedom from detention is a fundamental liberty interest with deep constitutional roots. The Government cannot use statutory interpretation to abrogate constitutional protections. At minimum, the detainees are entitled to bond hearings within 90 days to determine dangerousness and risk of flight.
Key Takeaways
- Statutory detention mandates cannot override Fifth Amendment Due Process protections for aliens with established U.S. residence.
- The “physical presence rule”—protecting all persons residing in the country, lawfully or not—remains binding precedent and applies based on actual residence and connections, not legal admission status.
- Undocumented immigrants with long-term U.S. residence, family ties, and clean records are entitled to bond hearings before continued detention, shifting the burden from indefinite detention to DHS conducting hearings through its own procedures.
- Recent Supreme Court precedent (Thuraissigiam) does not eliminate due process rights for aliens who have lived in the country for years; it addressed only aliens detained immediately upon entry.
Why It Matters
This decision confronts a major shift in DHS detention policy. The 2025 reinterpretation of § 1225(b)(2)(A) was designed to allow indefinite detention of long-term undocumented residents without bond hearings—a policy upheld by the Fifth Circuit in Buenrostro-Mendez (2026) on statutory grounds. However, the present case demonstrates that constitutional protections supersede statutory construction. The court acknowledged that “thousands” of immigration detainees have filed habeas corpus petitions challenging the new detention policy, creating enormous burdens on district courts. Rather than permit detention without hearings, the Fifth Circuit has forced the executive branch to conduct bond determinations through existing procedures.
The opinion signals a hard limit on executive discretion in immigration: statutes do not trump the Constitution, and long-term physical presence in the United States triggers fundamental due process rights. For immigration practitioners and detainees in the Fifth Circuit, this decision restores a procedural gateway—bond hearings—that the 2025 policy had closed. However, the court’s affirmance is narrowly tailored: it does not interfere with removal proceedings themselves, only the conditions of pre-removal detention. The decision leaves open questions about aliens with shorter residence periods and continues to distinguish those at or near the border from those with established U.S. connections.