Reported / Citable
Background
Marco Tulio Estrada Perez is detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at the Joe Corley Processing Center in Conroe, Texas. He is held under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), which permits expedited processing and detention of arriving aliens. Estrada Perez filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging the lawfulness of his detention. At the time of the petition, he had been in custody for more than 90 days. The government responded with a motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of the petition.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted Estrada Perez’s habeas petition in part, relying on the Fifth Circuit’s recent decision in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Ortega, 2026 WL 1906557 (5th Cir. July 2, 2026). The court held that detention beyond 90 days triggers a right to a bond hearing. Accordingly, the government must either release Estrada Perez from custody or provide a bond hearing by August 7, 2026.
If the government proceeds with a bond hearing, it must articulate an individualized justification for further detention without bond—not merely a categorical assertion that the detainee falls within a class subject to detention. The court ordered that the government provide at least 48 hours’ notice to Estrada Perez and his counsel before the hearing or release. The court denied the government’s motion for summary judgment and ordered the parties to file status updates and an advisory addressing whether the case may be closed or what issues remain.
Key Takeaways
- Detention beyond 90 days under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) entitles a detainee to a bond hearing under Fifth Circuit precedent.
- The government must provide an individualized justification for detention without bond, not a blanket policy or categorical determination.
- Habeas corpus remains available to challenge the lawfulness of indefinite immigration detention.
- At least 48 hours’ notice is required before any bond hearing or release.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that even under expedited immigration detention statutes, prolonged custody cannot proceed without a bond determination and individualized justification. Immigration practitioners challenging extended detention in the Fifth Circuit should cite Sosnava Rodriguez and this order for the proposition that detainees have enforceable rights after 90 days in custody. The ruling signals judicial scrutiny of indefinite detention policies and ensures that blanket categories cannot override due-process protections in habeas proceedings.
For government practitioners and ICE officials, the decision clarifies that continued detention beyond 90 days requires a reasoned assessment of flight risk or danger, not reliance on categorical detention authority. Failure to conduct a timely bond hearing or provide adequate notice risks habeas relief and release of the detainee.