Reported / Citable
Background
Derys Goering Hernandez Reyes, an ICE detainee held at the Joe Corley Processing Center in Conroe, Texas, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Hernandez Reyes challenged his prolonged detention in ICE custody, seeking release or a bond hearing.
The petitioner was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) and had been in custody for more than 90 days. Respondents, including ICE officials, filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of the habeas petition.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the petition for habeas corpus in part, relying on the Fifth Circuit’s July 2, 2026 decision in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Ortega, 2026 WL 1906557. Under that precedent, a detainee held beyond 90 days under § 1225(b)(2)(A) is entitled to a bond hearing.
The court ordered that respondents must either release Hernandez Reyes from custody or provide a bond hearing by August 7, 2026. If a hearing is held, the government must articulate an individualized justification for continued detention without bond. The respondents must provide at least 48 hours’ notice to the petitioner and counsel before any hearing or release. The court denied respondents’ motion for summary judgment.
Key Takeaways
- Detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) exceeding 90 days triggers a constitutional entitlement to a bond hearing
- The government must provide particularized, individualized justification for continued detention—general statutory authority is insufficient
- Failure to hold a timely bond hearing results in mandatory release
- Procedural protections include 48 hours’ advance notice and the right to representation
Why It Matters
This decision applies the Fifth Circuit’s recent Sosnava Rodriguez precedent to enforce statutory and constitutional limits on prolonged immigration detention. It impacts ICE’s detention practices across Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, requiring the agency to either conduct individualized bond hearings or release detainees held beyond 90 days under expedited removal authority.
The ruling signals that courts will enforce Fifth Circuit protections against indefinite detention and will not defer to government assertions of detention authority when statutory or constitutional constraints apply. For detainees and immigration advocates, it establishes a mechanism to challenge prolonged detention through habeas corpus.