Reported / Citable
Background
Dina Mabel Landaverde Martinez, an ICE detainee held at the Montgomery Processing Center in Conroe, Texas, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge her continued detention. Martinez was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) and had been in ICE custody for more than 90 days.
The government (Bret Bradford and other ICE officials) responded with a motion for summary judgment seeking to uphold the detention without a bond hearing. The court was required to decide whether Martinez was entitled to a bond hearing under current law.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted Martinez’s petition for writ of habeas corpus in part, finding that she is entitled to a bond hearing. This ruling was based on the Fifth Circuit’s recent decision in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Ortega (5th Cir. July 2, 2026), which establishes that ICE detainees held over 90 days under § 1225(b)(2)(A) have a right to bond hearings.
The court ordered the government to either release Martinez from custody or provide a bond hearing by August 10, 2026. If a hearing is held, the government must articulate an individualized justification for continued detention without bond and must provide at least 48 hours’ notice to Martinez and her counsel. The court denied the government’s motion for summary judgment and set deadlines for status updates and final resolution.
Key Takeaways
- ICE detainees held over 90 days under § 1225(b)(2)(A) are entitled to bond hearings requiring individualized justification for continued detention.
- The government cannot rely on summary judgment to avoid holding bond hearings for prolonged ICE detentions.
- Bond hearing procedures must include adequate notice and opportunity for the detainee and counsel to be heard.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces Fifth Circuit precedent protecting immigration detainees from indefinite custody without individualized bond determinations. For ICE and immigration attorneys, it clarifies that prolonged detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) triggers mandatory bond hearing rights that cannot be bypassed through summary judgment motions.
The ruling has practical implications for detention facilities nationwide: agencies must establish bond hearing procedures and provide specific, case-by-case justifications for continued detention rather than applying blanket detention policies. This protects detainees’ due process rights while balancing government interests in immigration enforcement.