Reported / Citable
Background
Yoaanny Morales Couto, detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his continued detention. Couto was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) and had remained in custody for more than 90 days at the time of filing. Respondents filed a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the petition.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted Couto’s habeas petition in part, relying on the Fifth Circuit’s recent decision in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Ortega (5th Cir., July 2, 2026). The court held that Couto, having been detained for over 90 days under § 1225(b)(2)(A), is entitled to a bond hearing. The court ordered that Respondents must release Couto from custody unless the government conducts a bond hearing by August 10, 2026.
If a bond hearing is held, the government must articulate an individualized justification for continued detention without bond. The court required the government to provide at least 48 hours’ notice to Couto and his counsel before any bond hearing or release. The court denied Respondents’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed all other pending motions as moot.
Key Takeaways
- Detainees held under § 1225(b)(2)(A) for more than 90 days have a right to a bond hearing under Fifth Circuit precedent.
- The government cannot maintain detention based on categorical status; it must provide individualized justification at a bond hearing.
- Procedural protections include 48-hour advance notice and an opportunity to be heard before continued detention.
Why It Matters
This order reflects the Fifth Circuit’s recent shift in immigration detention standards, requiring individualized review rather than blanket detention policies. For immigration practitioners and detainees in the Fifth Circuit, this decision significantly impacts how long ICE can hold individuals without a bond determination and strengthens due process protections in immigration custody matters.
The ruling also signals heightened judicial scrutiny of prolonged immigration detention and may affect pending cases involving similar fact patterns across the Southern District of Texas and the broader Fifth Circuit.