Reported / Citable
Background
Jorge Eduardo Morfin Andrade, detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his continued detention. Andrade was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) and had been in custody for more than 90 days at the time of the petition.
The government respondents, led by Raymond Thompson, filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the habeas petition. Andrade opposed the motion, arguing he was entitled to a bond hearing under recent Fifth Circuit precedent.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the habeas petition in part. Judge Andrew S. Hanen held that Andrade, as a detainee under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) who had been held for more than than 90 days, was entitled to a bond hearing under the Fifth Circuit’s recent decision in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Ortega (July 2, 2026).
The court ordered that respondents must either release Andrade from custody or provide a bond hearing by August 7, 2026. If a hearing is held, the government must articulate an individualized justification for detention without bond and provide at least 48 hours’ notice to Andrade and his counsel. The court denied the government’s motion for summary judgment.
Key Takeaways
- Detainees held under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) are entitled to a bond hearing after 90 days of detention under Fifth Circuit precedent
- The government must provide individualized justification for continued detention, not blanket policies
- Respondents must either release the detainee or hold a bond hearing within specified deadlines
- Summary judgment was inappropriate where material questions regarding detention and bond entitlement remained
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that prolonged immigration detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) triggers due process protections requiring bond hearings. By following the Fifth Circuit’s Sosnava Rodriguez framework, the court applied newly established law ensuring that immigration detainees cannot be held indefinitely without individualized review of their detention necessity and flight risk.
The ruling has immediate practical impact on ICE detention practices in the Fifth Circuit, requiring government agencies to conduct timely bond hearings and articulate specific, individualized reasons for continued detention rather than relying on categorical detention policies for immigration cases.