Reported / Citable
Background
Three women—Gladis Francisca Cuc-Paxtor, Gladis Adriana Son-Cuc, and Rosa Galilea Son-Cuc—are detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), the expedited removal statute. All three have been held for more than 90 days without a bond hearing. Through counsel, they filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the legality of their continued detention.
ICE officials (including then-DHS Secretary Kristi Noem) sought summary judgment to dismiss the petition, arguing that the government’s detention authority was valid.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Andrew S. Hanen granted the habeas petition in part, relying on the Fifth Circuit’s recent precedent in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Ortega (5th Cir. July 2, 2026). The court held that detainees held for more than 90 days under the expedited removal statute are constitutionally entitled to a bond hearing.
The court ordered that ICE must either release the petitioners from custody or provide each with an individualized bond hearing by August 7, 2026. If hearings are held, the government must articulate an individualized justification for further detention without bond and provide at least 48 hours’ notice to both the detainees and their counsel. The court denied the government’s motion for summary judgment and directed the parties to file status updates on custody outcomes.
Key Takeaways
- Detainees held 90+ days under expedited removal procedures have a due-process right to bond hearings before continued detention
- The government cannot simply hold someone without individualized justification after the 90-day threshold
- Notice requirements (48 hours) and procedural protections apply to all such hearings
Why It Matters
This order enforces Fifth Circuit precedent that limits the government’s ability to detain immigration cases indefinitely during expedited removal proceedings. While expedited removal itself remains valid, prolonged detention now requires judicial review and individualized justification—a significant protection for detainees who often lack counsel and have limited ability to challenge their confinement.
The decision reflects growing judicial scrutiny of immigration detention practices and the balance between border security and due-process rights, affecting ICE detention policies throughout the Fifth Circuit (Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi).